| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nikos
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 340
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: Chris Paul's PER and Magic |
 |
|
Paul has the highest PER for a PG since Magic @ 28.5. Magic's prime was 27.
Is Paul playing as good or better than Magic in his prime in THIS regular season?
Yes Magic has an awesome career that Paul may not come close to duplicating in terms of playoff success -- but is it unfair to say that Paul is impacting the game at PG like a PRIME MAGIC JOHNSON as far as regular season goes?
I say yes he is.
I made this argument on another forum, but I am getting flack for it from several posters.
Why exactly is Magic any better than Paul during his prime regular season campaigns? Why is it unfair to say Paul is playing like a 6 foot Magic Johnson here in 2008? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
94by50
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 447
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
The only negative I see is that somehow the Hornets' defense is 4 points per 100 possessions better when Paul is off the floor. I have no idea if this is Paul's fault or not.
Magic's raw shooting and rebounding percentages are better (not accounting for league standards), but everywhere else, Paul is right there with him. (Well, block percentage, too, but that doesn't seem to have a lot of impact overall.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 1794
Location: Delphi, Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Their careers are quite parallel thus far; even to both players missing a good part of year 2. Magic was neither the primary scorer (Kareem, then Wilkes) nor passer (Nixon was) at first.
In per-36 rates, adjusted to team pace: | Code: | year G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast PF Stl TO Blk 3s T
1980 77 36 .588 18.8 7.8 6.7 2.9 2.5 4.1 .5 7 33.3
1981 37 37 .570 21.9 8.6 7.9 2.7 3.5 3.9 .7 3 40.8
1982 78 38 .578 18.2 9.4 8.3 2.8 2.6 3.6 .4 6 37.1
Magic 192 37 .580 19.2 8.6 7.6 2.8 2.7 3.8 .5 16 36.3
year G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast PF Stl TO Blk 3s T
2006 78 36 .533 18.7 5.6 8.1 2.8 2.3 2.4 .1 50 34.8
2007 64 37 .526 18.5 5.0 8.0 2.5 1.9 2.6 .0 50 31.6
2008 60 38 .566 24.4 4.2 9.5 2.2 2.6 2.4 .0 69 40.6
Paul 202 37 .542 20.4 5.0 8.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 .1 169 35.8
|
Where Paul kicks Magic's ass is in TO: He had 1/3 less, even while scoring and assisting more. I haven't adjusted this stat to the norms of the era. Both are steals wizards at this age.
_________________
40% of all statistics are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jacob
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul is a good defender, but at 6'1" is quite easy to shoot over. Magic routinely posed huge problems for opposing PGs because they couldn't get clean looks at the basket. (And the floor, for that matter.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conan the Librarian
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jacob wrote: | | Paul is a good defender, but at 6'1" is quite easy to shoot over. Magic routinely posed huge problems for opposing PGs because they couldn't get clean looks at the basket. (And the floor, for that matter.) |
It's not like Paul's routinely matched up against guys who are 6'5" or 6'6", though, so I don't see how that argument holds water. Plus, Paul is unquestionably quicker than Magic was, meaning he's better able to defend quicker guards like Tony Parker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jacob
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It's not like Paul's routinely matched up against guys who are 6'5" or 6'6", though, so I don't see how that argument holds water. |
Why, exactly? The taller the defender, the harder it is to see the floor and the basket. Whether I'm 5'11" or 6'6", I'm seeing less with Magic guarding me.
Of course, Paul is much faster. I'm not implying that Magic was a superior defender, I don't know, but never underestimate height when assessing defensive capabilities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conan the Librarian
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You said that at 6'1", Paul is quite easy to shoot over. The fact that he is routinely matched up against players of comparable height means he is not easy to shoot over, just easier to shoot over than Magic would be, but I assume his quickness would somewhat makeup for his (relative) lack of size by enabling to get to and contest shots that Magic simply wouldn't be able to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 539
Location: cleveland, ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Plus, Paul is unquestionably quicker than Magic was...
i question this... you ever see magic play his 1st 3 seasons in the league (1979-80 to 1981-82)? paul is very quick, but so was magic when he was young (he came into the league at the age of 20, same as paul). you don't get into the lane as much as magic did, get as many rebounds as he did, and get as many steals as he did, just because you are tall. plus i can't think of any PG that got out on the fast break as quickly as a young magic did (hard to tell with paul as the hornets are one of the slower teams in the league, by magic's 3rd season the lakers had the 5th fastest game pace in the league, currently in paul's 3rd season the hornets have the 4th slowest game pace in the league)...
about the only player i saw quicker with the ball in his hands than magic was rickey green.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pinot
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike G wrote: | Their careers are quite parallel thus far; even to both players missing a good part of year 2. Magic was neither the primary scorer (Kareem, then Wilkes) nor passer (Nixon was) at first.
In per-36 rates, adjusted to team pace: | Code: | year G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast PF Stl TO Blk 3s T
1980 77 36 .588 18.8 7.8 6.7 2.9 2.5 4.1 .5 7 33.3
1981 37 37 .570 21.9 8.6 7.9 2.7 3.5 3.9 .7 3 40.8
1982 78 38 .578 18.2 9.4 8.3 2.8 2.6 3.6 .4 6 37.1
Magic 192 37 .580 19.2 8.6 7.6 2.8 2.7 3.8 .5 16 36.3
year G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast PF Stl TO Blk 3s T
2006 78 36 .533 18.7 5.6 8.1 2.8 2.3 2.4 .1 50 34.8
2007 64 37 .526 18.5 5.0 8.0 2.5 1.9 2.6 .0 50 31.6
2008 60 38 .566 24.4 4.2 9.5 2.2 2.6 2.4 .0 69 40.6
Paul 202 37 .542 20.4 5.0 8.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 .1 169 35.8
|
Where Paul kicks Magic's ass is in TO: He had 1/3 less, even while scoring and assisting more. I haven't adjusted this stat to the norms of the era. Both are steals wizards at this age. |
What does the T stand for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 1794
Location: Delphi, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pinot wrote: |
What does the T stand for? |
Sorry, I didn't see this before. It's just a 'total' (weighted) of the other stats:
T = Sco + Reb + Ast*1.33 - PF*.25 + (Stl+Blk-TO)*1.5
This produces a total rate which for whatever reason accounts quite closely for team Win likelihood (when multiplied by minutes).
Other details are in various threads hereabouts.
_________________
40% of all statistics are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mateo82
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not going to go that far because I consider Magic to be the best player of all time, not just best PG. But watching Paul I certainly have the same eerie flashbacks to the prime days of Magic. When Paul was entering the league I thought he'd be somewhere between terrell brandon and kevin johnson. I had no idea he'd become this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 1794
Location: Delphi, Indiana
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
