The Chris Paul Factor

Chris Paul, a video appreciation (Via Chris Hayes):

The risk posed by Paul's success, however, is that it's going to lead analysts to look at other guys who are excellent ballhandlers who make the occasional "ohmygod I can't believe that's possible" move and who are too short to succeed in the NBA, and conclude that they can have Paul-like levels of success. But it's impossible to tell from watching highlights and very hard to tell from watching games, the small-but-real differences that have made Paul's 2007-2008 campaign much better than Allen Iverson's. Paul pulls down 6.2 percent of available rebounds, Iverson grabs 3.8 percent. Iverson's effective field goal percentage is 49 percent, Paul's is 52 percent. These are very small numbers, but they add up to large differences over the course of a season and it's not really clear that even Paul will be able to continue performing on this level, much less that other undersized guys will be able to find enormous success.

Comments

excellent ballhandler indeed. if by "excellent" you mean "punching" and by ballhandler you mean "julius hodge in the junk"

Posted by erg | May 21, 2008 12:32 PM

Agree that it would be a mistake for NBA teams to look for "the next Chris Paul." After Magic became a huge success in the NBA, teams looked for the next Magic, but never found one, just as record labels looked for "the next Bob Dylan" but never found one of those, either. Probably there ought to be a cute academic name for this kind of dumbness: maybe "The Mellow Yellow Misunderstanding."

But it doesn't follow that because Chris Paul is a rare talent who happens to be short of stature, that he will not be able to continue to play at this level. Bob Cousy, Nate Archibald, John Stockton, Steve Nash, Tony Parker all played and/or continue to play at an All-Star level for years, despite being short by NBA standards.

Posted by Kit Stolz | May 21, 2008 12:36 PM

Agree that it would be a mistake for NBA teams to look for "the next Chris Paul." After Magic became a huge success in the NBA, teams looked for the next Magic, but never found one, just as record labels looked for "the next Bob Dylan" but never found one of those, either. Probably there ought to be a cute academic name for this kind of dumbness: maybe "The Mellow Yellow Misunderstanding."

But it doesn't follow that because Chris Paul is a rare talent who happens to be short of stature, that he will not be able to continue to play at this level. Bob Cousy, Nate Archibald, John Stockton, Steve Nash, Tony Parker all played and/or continue to play at an All-Star level for years, despite being short by NBA standards.

Posted by Kit Stolz | May 21, 2008 12:40 PM

Funny, you never hear about the NBA's search for the next Mugsy Bogues.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 21, 2008 12:46 PM

Speaking as a Bulls fan who has been in an ecstatic state for, oh, 16 hours or so, this is far from an academic question.

Look Derrick Rose is a great player, but we've been absolutely desperate for a low post presence, and by many accounts Beasley's season was better than Kevin Durant's. Please, please, take Beasley. Heinrich recovered a great deal in the second half of the season and has always been, aside from the disastrous first half, a good distributor and perimeter shooter and a great defender. A core of Captain Kirk, Sefolosha, Deng, Beasley and Noah, with Nocioni and Tyrus Thomas coming off the bench... I can roll with that. Ben Gordon, it's been nice knowing ya.

Posted by Freddie | May 21, 2008 12:48 PM

maybe "The Mellow Yellow Misunderstanding."

Good start, but something more punchy. Yours feels slightly ponderous.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 21, 2008 12:48 PM

The risk posed by Paul's success, however, is that it's going to lead analysts to look at other guys who are excellent ballhandlers who make the occasional "ohmygod I can't believe that's possible" move and who are too short to succeed in the NBA, and conclude that they can have Paul-like levels of success.

I don't think that's even close to true. People are still aware that height and weight matters. One of the things that people really like about Rose, for example, is that he's relatively tall and thick and quick.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 21, 2008 12:50 PM

This should be obvious from recent history. Tim Duncan and Shaq have 4 rings each. Steve Nash and Jason Kidd have 0 total. If the Bulls pass on Beasly, they'll be making a huge mistake.

Posted by Ron | May 21, 2008 12:59 PM

Steve Nash is not short for a point guard, he is 6-3, which is at least average. The issue is not Nash's height, it's that Nash totally sucks at defense.

Heinrich recovered? Dude is the basketball Chuck Knobloch. Get ride of him Bulls if you want to win.

Rose is overrated. He isn't close to what Chris Paul can do on offense. He is not a natural scorer. Not naturally aggressive. His size is what everyone drools over. Very good player, but not a superstar like Paul or Williams.

Chris Paul is awesome, but Allen Iverson at his peak was better, Iverson at his peak single-handedly would kill you, drop 50 on you, take his team to the Finals on you.

Chris Paul just disappeared in the biggest game of his career. He wasn't getting doubled either. They just played better team D on him.

I love Chris Paul, he's the best PG in the NBA today, but what's he done so far doesn't stack up to what AI has already done, sorry.

Posted by Eric Blair | May 21, 2008 1:05 PM

The ability to track all ten players simultaneously, imagine the game several moves down the line and react in real time is rare. It does not result in an "occasional" great play, but in passes that consistently lead to easy baskets (and occasionally seem miraculous).

Size certainly helps in accomplishing the reaction; it's easier to pass (and shoot) over people when you're Magic and 6'9 than when you're Cousy and 5'9. But the 360-degree tracking and imagining are the real talents, and those talents, not size or even necessarily athleticism, should be the basis on which point guards are drafted.

Mark Jackson was short and slow as hell and a great point guard. Stephon Marbury is taller and has enormous physical talent -- and is one of the worst point guards in the NBA.

Just go try to watch an old tape of Rumeal Robinson trying to play the point. You'll get the idea.

Posted by John Mecklin | May 21, 2008 1:14 PM

It seems silly to insult a great professional athlete in this manner, but about 40 seconds into the video it shows him struggling with a bench press. Of what appears to be a meager 135 pounds. Really, Chris?

Posted by lfv | May 21, 2008 1:22 PM

Paul is young. And I think he had a tougher path to the finals than AI. We'll see how history judges that one.

As for Rose, Chicago deserves what they will get if they take Rose. Many pundits are saying they should take Rose, but the intelligent ones are all predicting that they will take Beasley (and saying this is the correct move). You would need an enormously pressing need at PG, and plenty of strength in big men, to pick Rose first. The simple fact is, it's much harder to be an effective PG than an effective PF (given that you have the size and movement). Rose is far more likely to fall short of expectations than Beasley.

As for size, I'm not sure I believe the difference b/w 6' and 6'3'' really matters on offense. It makes a difference on defense, and it meant that Kidd was a really good defender back in the day. Of course, it never did Nash any good, which is why he might be the most overrated 2-time MVP of all time. If Rose was a great defender, that would be a big plus. But I don't really think that's been demonstrated yet.

Posted by mpowell | May 21, 2008 1:27 PM

This should be obvious from recent history. Tim Duncan and Shaq have 4 rings each. Steve Nash and Jason Kidd have 0 total. If the Bulls pass on Beasly, they'll be making a huge mistake.

Posted by Ron | May 21, 2008 12:59 PM

The Bulls need to take the guy they think is going to be the better, more dominant player rather than basing it on something like this. Its just as silly as teams always trying to find the next Magic/MJ. How do you think the Bucks feel about taking Bogut instead of Paul or Williams? If you are at the top of the draft, get the best player available instead of focusing on needs or conventional wisdom.

You can also say Jordan won 6, and would have won 8, without more than a decent big man. How many would Karim have won if LAA never got Magic? And exactly how many rings would Shaq be wearing without Kobe/Wade?

Posted by lfv | May 21, 2008 1:30 PM

This should be obvious from recent history. Tim Duncan and Shaq have 4 rings each. Steve Nash and Jason Kidd have 0 total. If the Bulls pass on Beasly, they'll be making a huge mistake.

Posted by Ron | May 21, 2008 12:59 PM

The Bulls need to take the guy they think is going to be the better, more dominant player rather than basing it on something like this. Its just as silly as teams always trying to find the next Magic/MJ. How do you think the Bucks feel about taking Bogut instead of Paul or Williams? If you are at the top of the draft, get the best player available instead of focusing on needs or conventional wisdom.

You can also say Jordan won 6, and would have won 8, without more than a decent big man. How many would Karim have won if LAA never got Magic? And exactly how many rings would Shaq be wearing without Kobe/Wade?

Posted by lfv | May 21, 2008 1:33 PM

Dude is the basketball Chuck Knobloch.

Knobloch, of course, has a couple rings, and he did it the same way Heinrich could do it-- by being a great supporting piece with a specific role who executed that role very well in supporting the bigger guns.

Posted by Freddie | May 21, 2008 1:42 PM

If I understand it correctly, you're saying that GMs may think they're drafting the next Chris Paul, but may end up with the next Allen Iverson instead. But most of them would be perfectly happy with that! AI took a team with less complementary talent than the current Hornets to the Finals and even won a couple of games there. Granted, the East then was a lot weaker than the West now, but still he's no slouch.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 21, 2008 1:47 PM

If I understand it correctly, you're saying that GMs may think they're drafting the next Chris Paul, but may end up with the next Allen Iverson instead. But most of them would be perfectly happy with that! AI took a team with less complementary talent than the current Hornets to the Finals and even won a couple of games there. Granted, the East then was a lot weaker than the West now, but still he's no slouch.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 21, 2008 1:50 PM

But it's impossible to tell from watching highlights and very hard to tell from watching games, the small-but-real differences that have made Paul's 2007-2008 campaign much better than Allen Iverson's.

It's NOT that hard to notice the big difference between Paul and Iverson.

First of all, shooting 52 percent vs. 49 means he's six percent more accurate. Not a huge difference, but hardly unnoticeable.

Second, you left out ASSISTS, which for a point guard is kind of important. Paul had 11.6; Iverson just 7.1. That's MASSIVE. Paul has The Answer beat by more than 60%. If you can't see that kind of differential while watching the games, you're spending too much time in the beer line.

He also had significantly more steals (2.7 vs. 1.95).

Posted by dj moonbat | May 21, 2008 1:51 PM

shooting 52 percent vs. 49 means he's six percent more accurate.

Your math is inspiring.

Posted by Freddie | May 21, 2008 1:56 PM

He's three percentage points more accurate. Not the same as three percent.

Posted by dj moonbat | May 21, 2008 1:59 PM

Dude is the basketball Chuck Knobloch.

Knobloch, of course, has a couple rings, and he did it the same way Heinrich could do it-- by being a great supporting piece with a specific role who executed that role very well in supporting the bigger guns.

Posted by Freddie | May 21, 2008 1:42 PM

Uh, sorry Freddie - maybe to the baseball illiterate I should have pointed out that I was referring to the post-championship Chuck Knobloch who started throwing the ball into the stands repeatedly until he had to be dumped and quit the game.

I was referring the Chuck Knobloch who went from being excellent player to poop on a stick who couldn't make a Little League Team.

Heinrich used to look like a great prospect - that got him his contract. But the past two years he's regressed and been exposed. Dude is not a big time player, and the Bulls would trade him if anyone would take his contract.

Duh.

Posted by Freddie Got Fingered | May 21, 2008 2:03 PM

To DJ Moonbat:

When Iverson won the MVP, he didn't play point guard.

He played shooting guard.

Eric Snow was the point guard.

So your "assists matter" thing doesn't quite make sense.

Posted by Freddie Got Fingered | May 21, 2008 2:12 PM

Deron Williams still owns him head to head. Going back to the slaughter in 2004.

Posted by Seitz | May 21, 2008 2:23 PM

Cousy was 6-1 and a freak with long arms and that vision thing. He, like Bird, Robertson, Pearl and Magic, lived in a different world. These folks can literally see the future and pass accordingly. Chris Paul seems to have that quality. Story so far: He had a great run and his team lost in the quarterfinals.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | May 21, 2008 4:13 PM

AI is not a point guard, he is a two guard. This has been the case since Larry Brown took over the reigns in Philly.

Posted by Southerndemocrat | May 21, 2008 7:34 PM

Rose is a different type of player than Paul is; not the shooter or with the fully developed pg game as he is, but taller, bigger/stronger and much more athletic. He has a pretty good chance to the best pg in the nba for a decade. You have to think pretty hard about turning that down. Beasley is good, but not too many people think he is going to be better than duncan, garnett, etc.--plus he is said to have numerous character issues.

Ultimately, you have to remember that the draft is about individuals, not stereotypes, and remember to let your let your impressions of the flaws of talent evaluators recede behind actual talent evaluation. Indeed, some pgs are more valuble than some undersized power forwards. Crazy, I know!

Posted by Client #11 | May 21, 2008 11:55 PM

It should be noted that most talent scouts/gms will advocate going for beasley, because despite your pretensions that is the move least likely to be a firing offense, but that isn't the same thing as a good basketball decision.

Posted by Client #11 | May 22, 2008 12:00 AM

>> The risk posed by Paul's success, however, is that it's going to lead analysts to look at other guys who are excellent ballhandlers who make the occasional "ohmygod I can't believe that's possible" move and who are too short to succeed in the NBA, and conclude that they can have Paul-like levels of success. >>

curious, MY, just who are these heretofore unheralded, short ballhandlers who may now recklessly be made the centerpiece of their teams? is there a secret stash of these guys somewhere (besides on ESPN's "streetball")?

paul is uniquely talented. outside of this blog, that is completely understood.

Posted by Skyhook | May 22, 2008 12:14 AM

"AI is not a point guard, he is a two guard. This has been the case since Larry Brown took over the reigns in Philly."

Jim O'Brien did play him for a year at the point in Philly also.

But the great bulk of Iverson's career has indeed been at the '2'.

-----

"If I understand it correctly, you're saying that GMs may think they're drafting the next Chris Paul, but may end up with the next Allen Iverson instead. But most of them would be perfectly happy with that! "

Of course. Iverson has been the best little man of his era. Matthew doesn't understand basketball very well and thinks Dave Berri is smart, so he likes to bash Iverson.

Paul put up stratospheric numbers this year. If he strings together a bunch more years like this, I'll happily concede him better than Iverson.

Think about it this way: Paul's 28.3PER this year is not only a better PER number than than Iverson has ever achieved, but also a better PER number than Tim Duncan or Kobe Bryant have ever achieved.

If Paul can replicate that year after year, he'll be the best little man of all time.

I don't think it's been properly recognized just how off the charts Paul's numbers were this year historically for a 6 footer.

Posted by Petey | May 22, 2008 1:00 AM

I am amazed that people actually care about basketball.

Posted by Mark | May 22, 2008 2:04 AM

Is this an NBA thread?

Um...Kobe. Wow. What a game.

Posted by 55 | May 22, 2008 2:05 AM