# The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johnson



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/stor...urpassing-magic-johnson-best-point-guard-ever

*Is Chris Paul the best PG ever?*










Tom Haberstroh said:


> After converting an "and-one" late in the fourth quarter against the Minnesota Timberwolves on Wednesday night, Chris Paul surpassed Magic Johnson on a dusty page in the record books. With 20 points and 11 assists on the night, Paul registered a double-double for the 12th straight game to start the season, breaking Johnson's record set back in 1990-91.
> 
> Get used to hearing Paul displacing Johnson's standing in history. Because Paul already is on pace to be the best point guard to ever step foot in the league. At least he is statistically. The sad thing is that almost nobody even realizes this is happening.
> 
> ...


Interesting case. Magic is the ultimate "silver spoon" case in NBA history. Not enough people take that into consideration when evaluating him historically. That still doesn't mean Chris Paul is better than him, but it shouldn't be ignored.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

Theres no case


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

Smartest thing I've seen LeGoat post. There is no case.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

Chris Paul should go down as one of the greats, no doubt. I'm hoping he and his team are able to achieve some success in the playoffs over these next few seasons.

I think it's a little silly to hold his lack of deep playoff success against him so harshly, because if you watch him play, there's no doubt he has that ability in him. If they get to the Finals this season it isn't going to change my opinion of Chris Paul, he's always been this good. It just means he's on a better team than he was previously. 

With that being said, I do hope it happens in the near future, because he deserves these types of accolades.


----------



## TheAnswer (Jun 19, 2011)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

Did not read gif here

There really is no case as Le6 said.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

I actually had a did not read gif above my post but photobucket still not working


----------



## TheAnswer (Jun 19, 2011)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

Great minds think alike I guess.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

What is this gif everyone is talking about?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



RollWithEm said:


> What is this gif everyone is talking about?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

That one, it finally worked


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

Regardless of whether or not you feel Paul could ever be considered in Magic's class, it's still a very nice article on the greatness of Chris Paul.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



RollWithEm said:


> http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/stor...urpassing-magic-johnson-best-point-guard-ever
> 
> *Is Chris Paul the best PG ever?*
> 
> ...


My reaction was exactly the same as when i once read that a young Tim Hardaway reached 5,000 points and 2,500 assists faster than any other NBA player in history with the exception of Oscar Robertson: aaaaah, that's cute.


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

I don't think anyone in their right minds would take CP3 over Magic if they were building a team.


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



LeGoat06 said:


> I actually had a did not read gif above my post but photobucket still not working


you shouldn't have to use photobucket to post an image, just find the image's original url and link that.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



23isback said:


> I don't think anyone in their right minds would take CP3 over Magic if they were building a team.


Nor over Oscar, Cousy, Thomas or West.

*At most*, he is competing with Stockton, Payton and Frazier.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

There is no argument and there will never be an argument. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

Were talking about him being better than Magic when I'd rather have a heatlhy Rose or Westbrook over him right this second


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

And there was a time I would have taking Deron over him too


----------



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

Barring injuries, CP3 will rightly go down as the 3rd greatest point guard of all time, but as the saying goes, he aint no Magic Johnson, not even close. I consider CP3s prime years to be close to early/mid 80s Magic ('82-'85), but clearly substantially worse than the offensive GOD that was the '86-'91 version. Btw, the dumbass who wrote that piece would have you believe that '82 Magic was just as good as '88 Magic - their respective PERs and WinShares are nearly identical, after all, and they both won championships. Hey, '82 Magic even won the FMVP, and '88 Magic didn't! Lmfao.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

Id take a prime Jason Kidd over the current Paul too. Paul is a great PG but people give the guy a pass all the time when comparing him with the great players of his generation. In terms of career accomplishments Dwight Howard has accomplished more while dealing with a similar career arc yet he gets a ton of shit while Paul gets nothing. Dwight deserves all the shit he gets btw, but its time for Paul to shit or get off the pot. His team is stacked. No more excuses Chris. Show me something besides getting booted out of the playoff every year.


----------



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Id take a prime Jason Kidd over the current Paul too. Paul is a great PG but people give the guy a pass all the time when comparing him with the great players of his generation. In terms of career accomplishments Dwight Howard has accomplished more while dealing with a similar career arc yet he gets a ton of shit while Paul gets nothing. Dwight deserves all the shit he gets btw, but its time for Paul to shit or get off the pot. His team is stacked. No more excuses Chris. Show me something besides getting booted out of the playoff every year.


That's absurd - Kidd couldn't shoot, CP3 can.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



oolalaa said:


> That's absurd - Kidd couldn't shoot, CP3 can.


Kidd was a far FAR better defender. He didnt just gamble for steals like Paul does.


----------



## Smath (Nov 29, 2010)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

how can u compare a natural PG to a PG that could play PF ? Magic was 1 and only.


----------



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Kidd was a far FAR better defender. He didnt just gamble for steals like Paul does.


Any defensive edge that Kidd had is more than offset by the large edge that CP3 has on offense. Chris Paul is actually capable of running very good offenses, you know? Kidd, because of his shooting, was not..


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

Magic was something totally different. Its just so hard to even compare. He's the greatest PG of all time in my opinion, but he transcends positions and categories that you people try and stuff him into. So I put him on a shelf by himself, and obviously I would want Magic to run my team.

That leaves to me Stockton and Chris Paul as true prototypical PGs, and I would take Chris Paul.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

No one ever posted "Who needs Magic? I got Norris Cole (80's version)."


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

There's a case for CP3 being best PG just like there's a case for the Bucks being the best franchise.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

He's not done with his career yet. Its to early to talk about any of these guys being the best anything yet. I think when all is said and done you will have Magic above everyone else as this weird never before seen and may never be seen again entity, and Chris Paul as far as PGs are concerned.

Chris Paul is THE textbook point guard.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



oolalaa said:


> That's absurd - Kidd couldn't shoot, CP3 can.


I don't know if I agree with this. By the time Kidd was done with his career he was one of the best three point shooters not only in the game, but in league history. Kidd is third on most 3pt FGs made in a career. Chris Paul is far from a lethal shooter, but maybe by the time his career is over he does the same?


----------



## Nuseryame (Nov 6, 2013)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

It will be hard for anyone to ever have a case against Magic, because the things that make people remember him as the absolute best PG ever are atypical of how players are usually compared. If Paul won more MVP's, more titles, and finished his career with better statistical averages and totals than Magic, people would still refer to anecdotal and very arbitrary criteria to keep Magic #1. Things like he was 6'9, played in the better era, etc.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

People need to put down their slide rules and watch basketball. Chris Paul is not even top 5 all time and will never be. 

In 5 years people will be using this same sort of crap to say Kevin Love is the greatest PF of all time, to bad his teammates sucked.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



MemphisX said:


> People need to put down their slide rules and watch basketball. Chris Paul is not even top 5 all time and will never be.
> 
> In 5 years people will be using this same sort of crap to say Kevin Love is the greatest PF of all time, to bad his teammates sucked.


This will be bumped.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



Geaux Tigers said:


> This will be bumped.


Only by me...


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

I'd take Isiah Thomas over Paul too.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



oolalaa said:


> Barring injuries, CP3 will rightly go down as the 3rd greatest point guard of all time, but as the saying goes, he aint no Magic Johnson, not even close. I consider CP3s prime years to be close to early/mid 80s Magic ('82-'85), but clearly substantially worse than the offensive GOD that was the '86-'91 version. Btw, the dumbass who wrote that piece would have you believe that '82 Magic was just as good as '88 Magic - their respective PERs and WinShares are nearly identical, after all, and they both won championships. Hey, '82 Magic even won the FMVP, and '88 Magic didn't! Lmfao.


So I know how much I can respect your opinion, who do you rank second?


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

Chris Paul has the 6th highest career average PER in NBA history, and he's not done. Let's stop acting like the book on Chris Paul is already written...he just turned 28 six months ago.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

ESPN pushing a Hollinger stat - shock horror.

If PER is going to be used as a measuring stick wouldn't that put Nash over guys like Payton, Thomas and Kidd in their prime?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*

Nash DID win multiple MVP's.

PER, along with stats in general, is definitely one aspect you need to consider when measuring talent.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PER is also primarily an offensive measure. Nash was certainly better than Kidd and Payton on offense, as both PER and general observation agree. Kidd and Payton were just worlds better on defense.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Id take a prime Jason Kidd over the current Paul too. Paul is a great PG but people give the guy a pass all the time when comparing him with the great players of his generation. In terms of career accomplishments Dwight Howard has accomplished more while dealing with a similar career arc yet he gets a ton of shit while Paul gets nothing. Dwight deserves all the shit he gets btw, but its time for Paul to shit or get off the pot. His team is stacked. No more excuses Chris. Show me something besides getting booted out of the playoff every year.


You can totally understand the Dwight hate vs Paul love logic when you think about it. For most of their careers they have been considered comparable players in terms of their value and ability to improve their teams, aside from the period of time immediately following Dwight entering his prime carrying the Magic to a finals appearance (and just an appearance, it sure wasn't competitive). 

Aside from that period of time. Similar career tracks and perceived value.

The difference is: Chris Paul is at that level because he is an absolutely fierce competitor. He works incessantly to be that caliber of player. He's absolutely capable of taking just the right team to an NBA Championship, but he can't quite take a team of role players there by himself. He'd run through a brick wall to achieve another level of play. He is at the level he is at as a basketball player because he is constantly working to be at that absolute peak of his capabilities. (it hasn't always been the case, but around his fifth year in the league he turned his defense around and improved his mental game all around)

Dwight on the other hand is not that sort of a competitor. He is a player who is capable of taking just the right team to an NBA Championship, and he also can't quite take a team of role players there by himself. The difference is: Dwight is slumming it at that level. Physically he's capable of being something far beyond what he is. He is maligned because he is seemingly squandering absolutely generational big man talent on a career track that inches closer and closer to going without a single ring with each passing season.

Its hard to fault Chris Paul for not winning a title when he's absolutely doing all his can to fight for one. It is easy to fault Dwight Howard for not winning a title when he truly seems to be throwing away the talent to take one by force.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



ChrisWoj said:


> You can totally understand the Dwight hate vs Paul love logic when you think about it. For most of their careers they have been considered comparable players in terms of their value and ability to improve their teams, aside from the period of time immediately following Dwight entering his prime carrying the Magic to a finals appearance (and just an appearance, it sure wasn't competitive).
> 
> Aside from that period of time. Similar career tracks and perceived value.
> 
> ...


Flopping around like an ass, making mean faces and cheap shotting folks does not make you a competitor.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

CPeePee3 must have hit MemphisX in the berries or something.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

*Chris Paul Breaks Magic Johnson’s Double-Double Record; Praises Him On Twitter*










http://dimemag.com/2013/11/chris-paul-breaks-magic-johnsons-double-double-record-praises-twitter/


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: The Case for Chris Paul over Magic Johson*



MemphisX said:


> Flopping around like an ass, making mean faces and cheap shotting folks does not make you a competitor.


Not necessarily, but Chris does all of those things and happens to be a fierce competitor as well.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Great players aren't rated by stats or ratios. They are rated by leading their teams to victory. They read stats after they retire. 

Frankly, Paul is behind a guy like C. Billups who doesn't have nearly the stats, streaks or PER stuff Paul has. But, he has led his teams to seven straight conference finals (something Magic never did) and won a ring. 

Those are the things that matter.


----------



## Smath (Nov 29, 2010)

LA68 said:


> Great players aren't rated by stats or ratios. They are rated by leading their teams to victory. They read stats after they retire.
> 
> Frankly, Paul is behind a guy like C. Billups who doesn't have nearly the stats, streaks or PER stuff Paul has. But, he has led his teams to seven straight conference finals (something Magic never did) and won a ring.
> 
> Those are the things that matter.


:yep: totally agree with this.

I'd take Tony Parker over CP3 as well , he's obviously doing something better then CP3, leading his team to champs and finals, leading the underdog french team to a europian championship, this guy is a pure born winner.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

LA68 said:


> Great players aren't rated by stats or ratios. They are rated by leading their teams to victory. They read stats after they retire.
> 
> Frankly, Paul is behind a guy like C. Billups who doesn't have nearly the stats, streaks or PER stuff Paul has. But, he has led his teams to seven straight conference finals (something Magic never did) and won a ring.
> 
> Those are the things that matter.


Yeah well Chauncey Billups didn't do any of that until he got united with a prime Rip Hamilton, a prime Ben Wallace, and a few days past prime Rasheed Wallace. Billups was a bust for nearly 2/3 of his career.

Chris Paul didn't have a chance in New Orleans...and the best year they had he was an MVP candidate (that is if you watched what he did with that sad sack of a roster) and they got bumped by San Antonio in the semi-finals where he dragged his team there averaging 21pts and 11assists and nearly 3 steals.

Winning is imporant, but I dont know if there is a player in the league that makes his teammates better as much as Chris Paul. He finds you on the dime when you don't even know you are open yet.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Discussions like this are hard to have when you're talking about a player who's not about to end his career.

You're saying you give Billups the edge in spite of the tape/stats/logic because he's had more playoff success. Billups has 16 years of NBA experience, Chris Paul 8. I don't even understand why you'd dig a hole like that for yourself, Chris Paul is unquestionably a more impactful/dominant/inspiring player than Chauncey Billups.


----------



## Smath (Nov 29, 2010)

Parker > CP3 and Billups.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

Smath said:


> Parker > CP3 and Billups.


Switch Chris Paul and Tony Parker and tell me the Spurs don't win even more. Tony Parker is a great PG, but he plays for one of the best run franchises in pro sports with one of the best head coaches in NBA history. Chris Paul was giving David West and Peja Stojakovic a piggy back ride every night and still averaging more points and assists.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

BlakeJesus said:


> Discussions like this are hard to have when you're talking about a player who's not about to end his career.
> 
> You're saying you give Billups the edge in spite of the tape/stats/logic because he's had more playoff success. Billups has 16 years of NBA experience, Chris Paul 8. I don't even understand why you'd dig a hole like that for yourself, Chris Paul is unquestionably a more impactful/dominant/inspiring player than Chauncey Billups.


Maybe you didn't read the title of this thread. The comparison is between a current player and a retired player. I merely compared him to another retired player.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Geaux Tigers said:


> Yeah well Chauncey Billups didn't do any of that until he got united with a prime Rip Hamilton, a prime Ben Wallace, and a few days past prime Rasheed Wallace.


And Jordan didn't win until he had Pippen and Grant. Isiah didn't win until he had Dumars and the bad boys. No one wins on his own.

The NBA has this procedure called "Unrestricted Free Agency" If Paul felt trapped, he could go to any team he wished to go to. Ask LeBron and Bosh how well that can work ??

Players are forever dictating where they wish to play and for the most part ending up there. So that excuse doesn't fly. There are many top stars in this league but, only one team can win each year. So some will be left out. 

That's why championships are so precious.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Even Derek Fisher has probably had a better career than Paul.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Even Derek Fisher has probably had a better career than Paul.


Right, and Robert Horry is better than Charles Barkley.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Chris Paul has more excuses made for him than any other superstar in the NBA and it's not even close.

His team is stacked right now, if he can't deliver at least a WCF appearance with this Clippers unit it is CLEARLY on him.


----------



## Smath (Nov 29, 2010)

Geaux Tigers said:


> Switch Chris Paul and Tony Parker and tell me the Spurs don't win even more. Tony Parker is a great PG, but he plays for one of the best run franchises in pro sports with one of the best head coaches in NBA history. Chris Paul was giving David West and Peja Stojakovic a piggy back ride every night and still averaging more points and assists.


switch Chris Paul and Tony Parker in the french team (where they don't have one of the best franchise history w/e) and France don't win shit... 

end of the day , its the players who win games , Manu and Duncan are old and past their prime (espically manu) and the rest are role players... Parker is sooo under rated.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

Smath said:


> switch Chris Paul and Tony Parker in the french team (where they don't have one of the best franchise history w/e) and France don't win shit...
> 
> end of the day , its the players who win games , Manu and Duncan are old and past their prime (espically manu) and the rest are role players... Parker is sooo under rated.


Yeah, the French team, thats exactly what this is about...


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

Luke said:


> Chris Paul has more excuses made for him than any other superstar in the NBA and it's not even close.
> 
> His team is stacked right now, if he can't deliver at least a WCF appearance with this Clippers unit it is CLEARLY on him.


This is the first good team he's been a part of, and they seriously lack a bench...so saying he could't lead the New Orleans Hornets to a championship is yall's argument. Okay thats solid.


----------



## Smath (Nov 29, 2010)

Geaux Tigers said:


> Yeah, the French team, thats exactly what this is about...


Its about Parker almost winning a champ last year in the finals , where did CP3 go last year? with Blake DJ and friends... if you want to talk only NBA... you obviously don't have any respect for the europian bball but I can tell its much harder to score on europian D rules.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Geaux Tigers said:


> This is the first good team he's been a part of, and they seriously lack a bench...so saying he could't lead the New Orleans Hornets to a championship is yall's argument. Okay thats solid.


Where did I say CP3 should have led his team to the championship again? 

The Hornets got out of the first round exactly once when Chris Paul was in uniform. And I have no idea why people downplay his supporting cast. David West was an all star big man, who has since COMPLETELY revitalized basketball in Indiana. Tyson Chandler is one of the five best defensive players in basketball (when healthy) and LITERALLY swung a title (2011) by his presence. Peja was a solid shooter and they had other weapons as well. It wasn't a LeBron's Cavs or pre Gasol Kobe's Lakers by any means. And he got out of the first round once, losing to the Spurs despite having home court. The next year he lost with home court to a perennial underachieving Nuggets team (the only time they made it out of the first round in the 'Melo era) and CP3 was destroyed by Chauncey Billups.

Now he's a Clipper. He's got a power forward that makes the all star game every year, and great supporting guys in his tenure like Crawford, Bledsoe, Jordan, Reddick, Matt Barnes, Grant Hill, Billups, Butler, etc. He's had plenty of help. And again, he's made it out of the first round ONCE, and was embarrassed by Tony Parker and the Spurs. 

He has no more excuses. Nobody is demanding that he wins a championship every single year, he's not exposed to the LeBron standard. But if he is "clearly the third best player in the NBA" like y'all like to call him, then he needs to deliver and at least make some noise in the playoffs.

The double standards that some players get on here is absurd.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

Smath said:


> Its about Parker almost winning a champ last year in the finals , where did CP3 go last year? with Blake DJ and friends... if you want to talk only NBA... you obviously don't have any respect for the europian bball but I can tell its much harder to score on europian D rules.


Well Chris Paul was born in America so that argument is stupid. We are talking about his status in the NBA and against Magic Johnson who played in the NBA and you want to bring in Euro ball. At least Luke is making NBA claims about why he doesn't think Chris Paul is what the article says he is.

Well I think Chris Paul would be better on the moon with less gravity...


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

It's all about being at the right place at the right time. Magic's been there, CP3 unfortunatly hasn't. But that doesn't mean CP3 is better than Magic...But he is better than Parker, if CP3 and Parker switched spots the Clippers would suck and Spurs would be slightly better.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

The Clippers would be in the playoffs with Tony Parker instead of Chris Paul, I have no doubts about that whatsoever.


----------



## Smath (Nov 29, 2010)

Geaux Tigers said:


> Well Chris Paul was born in America so that argument is stupid. We are talking about his status in the NBA and against Magic Johnson who played in the NBA and you want to bring in Euro ball. At least Luke is making NBA claims about why he doesn't think Chris Paul is what the article says he is.
> 
> Well I think Chris Paul would be better on the moon with less gravity...


well you said put CP3 on the Spurs they still win champs... how do you know? that's fantasy as well amigo... my argument is as good as yours.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Luke said:


> His team is stacked right now, if he can't deliver at least a WCF appearance with this Clippers unit it is CLEARLY on him.


This is far too black and white and completely ignores actual performance by Chris Paul, and completely ignores performance by his teammates, and completely ignores who they're playing against. 

So if Chris Paul plays like shit and they still get to the WCF, then in your view this proves he is a better player than in times when he dominated and they lost?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is far too black and white and completely ignores actual performance by Chris Paul, and completely ignores performance by his teammates, and completely ignores who they're playing against.
> 
> So if Chris Paul plays like shit and they still get to the WCF, then in your view this proves he is a better player than in times when he dominated and they lost?


Are you insinuating that Chris Paul has played well in every postseason defeat up to this point? From where I'm watching he was outplayed by Mike Conely last year, embarrassed by Tony Parker the year before that, and outplayed by Chauncey Billups in 2010.

Chris Paul is the best player on the Clippers. If he does not play well, they will not make it past the first round of the playoffs. That should be obvious. My point is that if the rest of the Clippers perform reasonably well then it's on him to produce.


----------



## Smath (Nov 29, 2010)

Obviously nothing in here is black and white.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Also, I don't think this Clippers team is stacked. I said it after the Redick trade that they're still vulnerable at the wings. They need a wing scorer who can make things happen without Paul (a Paul Pierce or Joe Johnson type). In a series, a team can still load up on Paul and nobody else can create, especially if Griffin gets hurt again like he does every year in the playoffs. They also have a terrible bench at this point. Paul has been awesome so far this year, and Griffin/Jordan have been great in the frontcourt. Obviously Doc Rivers is a bright spot because he is a better coach than they've had. They definitely have holes though.


----------



## Smath (Nov 29, 2010)

Don't they have Jamal Crawford as a wing ? he's one of the best scorers in the game... if you look at him move he's very similar to Durant only shorter, very good at the offensive side.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Who in the west has a better combination of talent, fit, and coaching than Paul has in L.A. right now?


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Luke said:


> The Clippers would be in the playoffs with Tony Parker instead of Chris Paul, I have no doubts about that whatsoever.


Yeah a playoff team...at like the other L.A. team of last year. CP3 gets Tim Duncan and Popovich...Parker would be getting DeAndre Jordan and Rivers.

Not to mention the system in which the Spurs play in...CP3 wouldn't have to to "make" players better around him since they are already great. I'd like to see Parker make DeAndre Jordan and Reddick have their best seasons


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Luke said:


> Are you insinuating that Chris Paul has played well in every postseason defeat up to this point? From where I'm watching he was outplayed by Mike Conely last year, embarrassed by Tony Parker the year before that, and outplayed by Chauncey Billups in 2010.


No, I'm not insinuating that Paul has played well every single time they've lost. I'm saying that you dismiss great individual performance _unless_ he wins, and further would dismiss bad individual performance if he happened to win. This is a terrible way to evaluate individual player performance. It's also curious that players that you consider better than him aren't held to the same standard. The Spurs have had some huge letdowns since Parker became the best player on that team, and he isn't *ever* criticized the way that Paul is. 

If people only criticized Paul for his poor performances, I'd be fine with that. Instead people act like he has been playing with the dream team and should have 5 titles by now, therefore he sucks.



Luke said:


> Chris Paul is the best player on the Clippers. If he does not play well, they will not make it past the first round of the playoffs. That should be obvious. My point is that if the rest of the Clippers perform reasonably well then it's on him to produce.


So if Paul performs, and the rest of the Clippers perform, and they still lose, then he was a letdown? If Paul doesn't perform, and the rest of the Clippers do, and they win, then he gets a pass? It's just weird.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

You are comparing Blake Griffin and David West with the greatest PF of all time! 

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Luke said:


> Who in the west has a better combination of talent, fit, and coaching than Paul has in L.A. right now?


Parker has Duncan (arguably the best big man last year), a better coach, better bench and depth, and a system that's been in place for years. 

Durant has another top 5-7 player in the league, a borderline all-star power forward, and a better bench. 

Golden State has a better backcourt, wings, frontcourt and bench. 

Paul has a top 15 player, a nice frontcourt, a great coach, but a terrible bench and they're in the first year under Doc. If Griffin can become a top 5-7 player, I think the Clippers have as good of a chance as anyone. Without two top 10 players and a 3rd really good player (like OKC or Miami), you need a great system, balanced starting 5, bench, coaching, etc (like SAS, Indiana, Memphis last year, GS this year). I don't see that LAC has either right now. Do you? Are JJ Redick and Jared Dudley/Matt Barnes the starting wings of a real contender? I think I read that their bench is playing worse defense per possession than the worst defensive team of all-time, statistically (I think it was the Suns not too long ago).


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Luke said:


> The Hornets got out of the first round exactly once when Chris Paul was in uniform. And I have no idea why people downplay his supporting cast. David West was an all star big man, who has since COMPLETELY revitalized basketball in Indiana. Tyson Chandler is one of the five best defensive players in basketball (when healthy) and LITERALLY swung a title (2011) by his presence. Peja was a solid shooter and they had other weapons as well. It wasn't a LeBron's Cavs or pre Gasol Kobe's Lakers by any means. And he got out of the first round once, losing to the Spurs despite having home court. The next year he lost with home court to a perennial underachieving Nuggets team (the only time they made it out of the first round in the 'Melo era) and CP3 was destroyed by Chauncey Billups.


His supporting cast is being downplayed because they were the downfall of that team. 

First of all, you brought up David West. When you think of David West, you think of this Indiana version who isn't relied on to score very much and who has bought into the defensive identity of that team. Still, he's the 4th offensive option on that team most of the time and NEVER guards the difficult match-ups in the paint because Hibbert and Mahinmi are both better defenders. The only reason this Indiana team is a contender is that they have 2 or 3 better offensive players and 3 or 4 better defensive players than West. He was the unquestioned second option on those Hornets teams and often times one of the worst defensive PFs in basketball... and that's coming from a financially invested season ticket holder during that period of time. My friends and I used to watch those games counting how many complete defensive breakdowns we'd see from West. One game we counted 38. He was a complete sieve in New Orleans.

Secondly, you mentioned Tyson Chandler. Chandler has been a good defender for most of his career, but he was far from a top 5 defender in his New Orleans days. He swung a title with his presence because the rest of that team was built to score so Chandler didn't have to do anything but anchor the defense. Chris Paul's Hornets actually traded Chandler for Emeka freaking Okafor just to try and get some semblance of offense from that position. 

Most importantly, though, the rest of that Hornets supporting cast was ABYSMAL. If you watched that team on a regular basis, you would know that the only other reliable offensive player (Peja Stojakovic) completely shied away from every big moment and air-balled open threes down the stretch of playoff games REGULARLY. Past him, that team was starting the likes of Rasual Butler and Morris Peterson. The first big off the bench was Linton Johnson, Hilton Armstrong, Julian Wright, or Aaron Williams. Those are guys that were each completely out of the league immediately thereafter. The guards/wings off the bench were mostly Kirk Snyder, Devin Brown, Mike James, late career Antonio Daniels, or WAY past his prime and out-of-shape Bonzi Wells. That bench was so horrible that getting a below-replacement-level third guard like Jannero Pargo actually took them to new heights. 

Management completely overpaid for James Posey and Peja Stojakovic and then refused to pay the luxury tax to continue to build regardless of their earlier mistakes. That supporting cast was utterly horrible. Just look at the teams that knocked them out of the playoffs. The Chauncey/Melo/Nene Nuggets were flush with talent and took the eventual champion Lakers to 6 games in the Western Finals. That Spurs team was so loaded that their 10th man (in terms of playoff minutes played) was Robert Horry. Oh and Chris Paul DOMINATED Tony Parker in that series. He outscored Parker and out-assisted him in all but one game. He also shot more efficiently and took a much better Spurs team to the brink in Game 7.

Comparing Paul's supporting casts to Magic's doesn't even scratch the surface. Try comparing Paul's teammates to Parker's. It's not even close. Anybody who thinks Tony Parker has ever been better at basketball than Chris Paul for a single moment in his life is just lost when it comes to player evaluation IMO.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

RollWithEm said:


> Try comparing Paul's teammates to Parker's. It's not even close.


Just to clarify: are you saying Tony Parker *currently *plays with a much better supporting cast than Chris Paul's or are you talking career-wise? 



> Anybody who thinks Tony Parker has ever been better at basketball than Chris Paul for a single moment in his life is just lost when it comes to player evaluation IMO.


I do believe Chris Paul to be a better player than Tony Parker, but i also believe people are sleeping on the Frenchman.
Tony Parker is the clear-cut best player in the San Antonio Spurs franchise and the engine that keeps them winning (currently an astonishing 12-1). His stats aren't as eye-popping as Paul's, but he is having a great season nonetheless (18.2ppg on .542FG%), while playing without a finisher like Griffin and in a relevantly slower pace.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Just to clarify: are you saying Tony Parker *currently* plays with a much better supporting cast than Chris Paul's or are you talking career-wise?


Career-wise MUCH, MUCH BETTER.

This season, the Spurs without Parker are still a better team than the Clippers without Paul. The gap has closed a lot, though.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

RollWithEm said:


> Career-wise MUCH, MUCH BETTER.
> 
> This season, the Spurs without Parker are still a better team than the Clippers without Paul. The gap has closed a lot, though.


The key is Tim Duncan, much like with the Clippers the key is Blake Griffin. When Duncan is merely a good big man, the Spurs have won a lot of regular season games and then been beat in the playoffs by lower seed teams, sometimes even losing in the first round as a 1st seed (none of which Parker has been criticized for, by the way). When Duncan is playing like the best big man in the league, they can go as far as they did last year, being 27 seconds from an NBA championship. 

If Duncan comes back to Earth and starts playing like a 38 year old, their supporting casts are very comparable. If he remains an All-NBA big man, then Parker certainly has a better cast because everyone falls in line after that. Ginobili is another unpredictable variable to that equation.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The key is Tim Duncan, much like with the Clippers the key is Blake Griffin. When Duncan is merely a good big man, the Spurs have won a lot of regular season games and then been beat in the playoffs by lower seed teams,* sometimes even losing in the first round as a 1st seed (none of which Parker has been criticized for, by the way*). When Duncan is playing like the best big man in the league, they can go as far as they did last year, being 27 seconds from an NBA championship.
> 
> If Duncan comes back to Earth and starts playing like a 38 year old, their supporting casts are very comparable. If he remains an All-NBA big man, then Parker certainly has a better cast because everyone falls in line after that. Ginobili is another unpredictable variable to that equation.


Wich series would you criticize Parker for?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Wich series would you criticize Parker for?


There are two things going on here. The things I would criticize a player for are simply individual performance related. The things people typically criticize Chris Paul for are more related to team success. So I'll look at both. I would say Parker has more individual letdowns and team letdowns than Paul in the past 5 years, despite having a better team and better environment for individual and team success. 

2008-2009: 3rd seed Spurs lose in 5 games to 6th seed Mavericks in the first round. Chris Paul would certainly be criticized for this as it's a 1st round exit to a lower seed team. I personally have no criticism of Parker in this series, as he played well above his average. 

2009-2010: 7th seed Spurs lose in 4 games to 3rd seed Suns in the second round. Not only did the Spurs get swept, but Parker played below average (19ppg, 5apg). Parker deserves some criticism for playing below his average in this series. Chris Paul would be heavily criticized for this, infact I'd expect some rhetoric like _Paul was destroyed by Steve Nash in 4 straight games_. 

2010-2011: 1st seed Spurs lose to 8th seed Grizzlies in 6 games. Parker played slightly below average statistically (19ppg, 5apg). When Dirk played below average in a series where his 1st seed Mavericks lost to an 8th seed Warriors in the first round, he was criticized heavily. Parker played below average in this series, and he wasn't criticized. Paul would have been ripped to shreds for this kind of happening, like Dirk was. My personal criticism would simply be that he played a little below his average, not being accountable for the entire disappointing outcome. 

2011-2012: 1st seed Spurs lose to 2nd seed Thunder in the WCF. Parker played about an average series for him. I'd have no criticism for him, although this is the 3rd time in 4 years that the Spurs lost to a lower seed in the playoffs. Those who hold the best player on teams accountable for the whole teams success or failure would be forced to criticize a player who keeps losing to lower seeds in the playoffs. 

2012-2013: 2nd seed Spurs lose to 1st seed Heat in finals. Parker played out of his mind throughout the playoffs, but really disappeared in the finals, especially late in the series. For example, when LeBron dominates through the playoffs and disappears in the finals against Dallas, he is criticized heavily. If Chris Paul averaged 15ppg on 41% over 7 games in the finals like Parker did, he would be criticized heavily, regardless of how well he played in the series' leading up to the finals.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

Yeah but the French team...


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I'm going to go ahead and live in my fantasy world where anyone who thinks Chris Paul is better at basketball than Magic Johnson was, or has had a better career than Magic Johnson had is a moron.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> There are two things going on here. The things I would criticize a player for are simply individual performance related. The things people typically criticize Chris Paul for are more related to team success. So I'll look at both. I would say Parker has more individual letdowns and team letdowns than Paul in the past 5 years, despite having a better team and better environment for individual and team success.
> 
> 2008-2009: 3rd seed Spurs lose in 5 games to 6th seed Mavericks in the first round. Chris Paul would certainly be criticized for this as it's a 1st round exit to a lower seed team. I personally have no criticism of Parker in this series, as he played well above his average.
> 
> ...


2008-2009
Regular season:
22ppg (.506FG%) 6.9apg
Playoff losing series:
28.6ppg (.546FG%) 6.8apg


2009-2010:
Regular season:
16ppg (.487FG%) 5.7apg
Playoff losing series:
19.5ppg (.479FG%) 5apg

2010-2011
Regular season:
17.5ppg (.519FG%) 6.6apg
Playoff losing series:
19.7ppg (.462FG%) 5.2apg

2011-2012
Regular season:
18.3ppg (.480FG%) 7.7apg
Playoff losing series:
21.5ppg (.481FG%) 6.3apg

2012-2013
Regular season:
20.3ppg (.522FG%) 7.6apg
Playoff losing series:
15.7ppg (.412FG%) 6.4apg
Playoff averages:
20.6ppg (.458FG%) 7.0apg

Besides paying poorly in last year's Finals, i don't think a case can be made that Parker shrinks in the playoffs. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Finals MVP, 3 Championships, yadayada.

Tony Parker is a damn fine PG. He is not as good as Chris Paul, but i wouldn't say there's a world of difference between the two. But it ain't Parker who is been compared to Magic freaking Johnson, right?
(in second thought maybe Parker's resume puts him closer to Magic then Paul, wouldn't you say?  )


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

i don't see how this can even be a debate.. paul has done squat in the post season. he gets good stats in the regular season when officials always fall for his BS flops but come playoffs the refs swallow their whistle and he gets ousted year after year. I found it funny last year they had this commercial that made conley look like his bitch yet the grizzlies would go on to win 4-2 in the first round of the playoffs. all this while the clippers were heavy favorites to win.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Besides paying poorly in last year's Finals, i don't think a case can be made that Parker shrinks in the playoffs. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Finals MVP, 3 Championships, yadayada.


You're right. I overestimated how good he was in the regular season. Still the point remains, that if Paul played like Parker did in some of those series' he would be crucified. That's because Paul is clearly a better player. I just wish people would remember that when Paul has a below average series for him, or Parker has an above average series. Paul's playoff average is 21ppg on 48%, 10apg, 5rpg. Parker's career playoff average for all the glory you stated is 19ppg on 46%, 5apg, 3rpg. There is a clear difference in performance. I guess it pays to have Tim Duncan on your side for your whole career. 



PauloCatarino said:


> Tony Parker is a damn fine PG. He is not as good as Chris Paul, but i wouldn't say there's a world of difference between the two. But it ain't Parker who is been compared to Magic freaking Johnson, right?


The M0agic comparison was merely to point out how Paul has been undervalued. Nobody actually thinks he is equal or better than Magic. I don't think anyone in the thread actually made an argument for that, or even hinted at it. And yes, Parker is absolutely a great point guard. Arguably 2nd best in the league and no worse than top 5. 



PauloCatarino said:


> (in second thought maybe Parker's resume puts him closer to Magic then Paul, wouldn't you say?  )


Yes, in the same way that Derek Fisher's resume puts him closer to Magic than any PG in history. He just knows how to win!


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

OP, most people make the same mistake and simply compare *number to number*, but it isn't how it's supposed to work, actually. To note, avg of PER and WS were lower in 80s.

Chris Paul's excellent. Numbers support that indeed. But he's never led the league in pretty much anything in any of Advanced Stats category. But Magic Johnson did. He arguably was the best player at some point in his career. Chris Paul's the best PG in this era, only fools would argue that, but not anything close to the best player. That's what really separates Magic and CP3.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You're right. I overestimated how good he was in the regular season. Still the point remains, that if Paul played like Parker did in some of those series' he would be crucified. That's because Paul is clearly a better player. I just wish people would remember that when Paul has a below average series for him, or Parker has an above average series. Paul's playoff average is 21ppg on 48%, 10apg, 5rpg. Parker's career playoff average for all the glory you stated is 19ppg on 46%, 5apg, 3rpg. I guess it pays to have Tim Duncan on your side for your whole career.


You can't have it both ways, Patches: if you say it's Duncan's team, you can't blame Parker for playoff exits. 
Even disregarding that, Parker ups in game in the playoffs. 
And you can't really compare career playoff averages between the two considering they came from diferente backgrounds and experience: Parker had 0 experience of amateur ball before playing in the NBA.

I'd say that the Spurs, in the last couple of seasons, have been Parker's team. And he has led the Spurs to undeniable success.



> The M0agic comparison was merely to point out how Paul has been undervalued.


I don't think Chris Paul has been undervalued. 
He is the best PG in the league today (i don't think anyone can dispute that) and, stat-wise, comparable to other great PGs of the past.
SO FAR, he's not in contention with all-time great PGs like Thomas, Oscar, West (if considered a PG) and Cousy; he is *aproaching *Payton/Stockton/Frazier level.
Wouldn't you say that's a fair evaluation?



> Nobody actually thinks he is equal or better than Magic. I don't think anyone in the thread actually made an argument for that, or even hinted at it. And yes, *Parker is absolutely a great point guard. Arguably 2nd best in the league and no worse than top 5*.


Ah, but are you willing to admit Parker is a great playoff player? 



> Yes, in the same way that Derek Fisher's resume puts him closer to Magic than any PG in history. He just knows how to win!


lol. You must reaaaaally like Tim Duncan if you think Duncan's defense made Tony Parker the Spurs leading scorer in 5 regular seasons and 4 playoff runs.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> You can't have it both ways, Patches: if you say it's Duncan's team, you can't blame Parker for playoff exits.


I'm not blaming him, as I said in my previous post. I'm saying the people who _do_ blame the best player on a team for a team's playoff failures are not being inconsistent when it comes to Parker. Why is that? 



PauloCatarino said:


> I don't think Chris Paul has been undervalued.
> He is the best PG in the league today (i don't think anyone can dispute that) and, stat-wise, comparable to other great PGs of the past.
> SO FAR, he's not in contention with all-time great PGs like Thomas, Oscar, West (if considered a PG) and Cousy; he is *aproaching *Payton/Stockton/Frazier level.
> Wouldn't you say that's a fair evaluation?


Yes, your evaluation is fair. I'm mainly speaking to those who every year have someone they hold above Paul at PG. If it's not Parker, it's Deron Williams, Derrick Rose, or even Russell Westbrook who is supposedly as good or better than Paul. 



PauloCatarino said:


> Ah, but are you willing to admit Parker is a great playoff player?


Absolutely. Parker is awesome in the regular season and playoffs.



PauloCatarino said:


> lol. You must reaaaaally like Tim Duncan if you think Duncan's defense made Tony Parker the Spurs leading scorer in 5 regular seasons and 4 playoff runs.


I don't think I said that. You said his "resume" was closer to Magic's than Paul's because of the championships (I assume, since that's the only thing he has on Paul) and I was merely pointing out that the one thing that Parker has on Paul is the one thing that Fisher has on Parker, so you tell me how much it matters.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Patch has this right re: Paul v Parker, and it's pretty simple. Put Parker on any of Paul's teams and he has 0 rings and nobody is even thinking about him being a top point guard. 

People overrate championships when it comes to evaluating individual players.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

a point guard is different than other positions , pretty much your job is to get the most out of whats on the floor with you .

magic had a lot to work with and comparatively paul does not ....also the rules are now different to give smaller , quicker players more of an edge.

if i had to choose in today's nba between a 28 yr. old magic and a 28 yr. old chris paul and they had to guard their positions i'd probably want paul

if i had to choose who'd be better on the 87-88 lakers its clearly magic for me.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Something to note: yes, magic had more talent around him, absolutely. But the NBA had even less parity back then and every contender was a super team. Chris Paul has never had to deal with a team on the level of Jordan's Bulls, Bird's Celtics, or dr. J's 76ers. 

Chris Paul is still the best point guard currently playing.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

Among casual basketball fans, Chris Paul is probably undervalued in a sense that he doesn't get the fair comparison but to likes of Parker and Rose when he really belongs to class of Stockton and Magic. In fact, Stockton and Paul are two of my top three players when it comes to discussion of Greatest PGs of 3pt era.

Simply, nobody has done what Paul did in 2008 and 2009. His dominance was unmatched. And in 2008 he continued it into the playoffs. Despite going out in seven to the Spurs in the second round he left the playoffs with the best PER, highest AST%, most Offensive Win Shares and best WS/48.

Paul should have won the 2008 MVP. There isn't really a debate here. Nobody could compare to what Paul at 6 foot did that season. The best way to describe it? Stockton at 25% usage.


----------

