Then please show some logic that refutes the points in the article. I'm going to quote some more stuff since you didn't read the article.
He was placed above LeBron James last season in the MVP vote. My debate was with a moderator who stated that Paul is underrated. I don't see it, and I think he is overrated.
But based on your logic, Chris Paul is already better than Magic Johnson, since statistically Bryant's peak was better than Magic's, even though any sane Laker fan knows Magic was the superior impact player.
Congrats, he takes a lot of gambles on defense. How many people actually think he's a good defender? I guess you're into stat nerds and PER then? K. He was one of the worst defending PGs in the league last year, giving up 18+ PER? A pretty high number if you're into that. http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/play...pn.go.com/nba/players/hollinger?playerId=2779
So? I don't care if a moderator thought he was underrated he's entitled to his opinion, I was directly asking you why Paul doesn't belong in the same class as Lebron and Kobe. Like I said the numbers speak otherwise.
Okay heuvon, you're continuing to ignore everything that is being said and what is in the article. It's saying due to his lack of size he can never be a great on the ball defender. But he MORE than makes up for it in steals. He only gives up .9 more points than the average PG then you factor in his steals which lead to points the other way, I think it's pretty safe to say he's an above average defender. It's not my fault you don't want to look at the facts.
Which logic of mine? That Kobe is off his peak, due to PER? I'm not saying Kobe is past his peak purely due to PER. I watch a lot of Kobe, I have for years. He seems clearly not as good as he was a few years ago. PER simply validates the observational data, for me. Chris Paul is playing at a level that I haven't seen in a point guard since Magic Johnson. His PER is just solid evidence, to me, that my eyes don't deceive me. Whether he's better than Magic is a different question, and not one I purported to answer.
Big Z was a former all star when Lebron did it and Bryant had Gasol when he went to the finals, who was an all-star this year if I'm not mistaken. So Paul is punished because Lebron and Kobe had superior teams.
The article said he tries to compensate it and it cites points, not that he's as good a defender as his SPG suggests. PER is supposed to be a better method of being an all-encompassing barometer, correct? I don't see what the problem with my statistical reference is, it is just as valid.
Here is the problem with +/-. 1. It takes 3-5 seasons of data to reduce statistical noise to tolerable levels. Not kidding. It really does take that much data. 2. Using 3-5 seasons of data requires holding every player's rating constant during that time frame. That introduces a whole new error into the model. 82games.com claims to get around this by using 5 seasons of data, but weighting the current season much more heavily than earlier seassons. But the standard errors they report are about as low as using 5 full seasons of unweighted data. That does not wash. I strongly suspect something is wrong with their methods. I don't know enough statistics to prove it though. For example, take polling. If you poll 1,000 people your standard error will be much lower than polling 100 people. But suppose you poll 1,000 people and weight the last 100 so much that they constitute 95% of your poll. Obviously the standard error should go back up to the levels of the smaller poll. 82games.com errors stay low. Something wrong. Then they wonder why Chris Paul's definsive rating swings from the horrific -4.5 last year to the superb + 6.8 this year. Way outside their supposed standard error. In spite of all that.... I believe LA > Amare Stoudamire because he has significantly outperformed him over the course of 3.5 seasons using +/- with no weighting. IMO Amare's stats have been Nashified. I was hoping he'd get traded so we might see if that is really true.
What statistical reference? Oh the one you cite no link to. Yeah, I'm not just going to take your word for it. If you do, I'll just go and break down how flawed PER is. EDIT: It is true that he's not saying he's a good defender because of his steals but that the amount of Opponent allowed FG% between him and the average starting point guard is so marginal, that he makes up for it with steals that turn into points.
What missing link are you speaking of? Frankly what is your point? He gives up less points after your little steal converter, but at a higher percentage than the league average? Not to mention the other boosted stats he gives up? His steals are misleading either way.
I already said Paul has never been in a Finals. That doesn't need to be backed up. You can cite all of the superfluous facts you need to make yourself feel better, I suppose, but Paul is a very good player who is not Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, or even Tim Duncan.
My point is, earlier you had said what has steals got to do with anything, and I proved otherwise. I showed that since Paul only gives up .9 points more than the average PG he makes up for in steals which would almost certainly lead to points the other way. And since he steals at a much higher rate than other PG's, he's actually saving more points through steals than on the ball defense. EDIT: The link you are missing is when you say Paul gave up 18 PER to opposing PG's.
His name hadn't been mentioned in this stupid thread until I brought it up, so excuse me for saying "even Tim Duncan".
