Hawks' fans: "Glad we didn't get Paul"

[Fenix]

http://realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=505948&start=0

Can somebody explain me the sick logic behind this? Paul had one of the best rookie seasons ever, both individually and how he influenced the team he was on. He is 21 years old, will improve his shot and overall game and would be a MVP contender right now, if he were on a better team. How would you rather have Marvin Williams, when you already have a superb SF projects in Josh Smith and Josh Childress? Wouldn't you rather have a player who will be the best one at his position for the next decade or so over a swingman who'll never be top 5 at his (Lebron, Carmelo, Mcgrady, Kirilenko, Shawn Marion, etc., perhaps even Josh Smith and Prince)? You'd rather have Marvin and lose to get a good position in a weak draft, rather than get in the playoffs? What the hell?

[dinocarlo]

That's one of the most illogical statements I've ever read.

Come on Hawks fans, no offense meant to Marvin Williams, but I think he was hardly a factor this season for the Hawks. Without him, the Hawks will be in the same situation.

Without Paul, the Hornets will be as bad as the Hawks or even worse.

I think the point guard is the most important position in basketball. He controls how the team plays especially on offense.

Who's the Hawks PG? Tyronn Lue?

[J@3]

Who cares, RealGM is generally full of idiots and massive homers. Ask some Knick fans there and they'll tell you their team is full of future Hall Of Famers.

[Matthew]

Can somebody explain me the sick logic behind this? Paul had one of the best rookie seasons ever

Please tell me your joking

[cklitsie]

Who cares, RealGM is generally full of idiots and massive homers. Ask some Knick fans there and they'll tell you their team is full of future Hall Of Famers.

Word, everybody knows they just traded their only possible future HOF'er along with Penny.

[dinocarlo]

Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury can be Hall of Famers... if they learn to share the ball.

[The X]

^^^ oh boy, not much else to say I guess

[Matthew]

Upon further review of that thread, im baffled how you came to the conclusion of this title vank.

"I'm indifferent, to be honest. If we had gotten him, I think we all would have been happy, but we'd then have a need for another SF. Gay could now be a consideration with our pick had we gone with Paul last year."

"Let's be realistic here. If we had the pick over again we would have to pick Paul. No way around it."

"i'm wouldn't say that i'm glad that we didn't get paul, but i can say that i am content with marvin williams"

Thats from the first page alone.

[dinocarlo]

^^^ oh boy, not much else to say I guess

I think everyone knows what the problems of the Knicks are. No need to make it detailed

[Nick]

There's not much point in even bothering to think about comparing them yet. They don't know who will be better down the road. Marvin and Paul are what, 19 and 20? Marvin could still end up being the better pick.

[Matthew]

Excellent point nick. Jermaine o'neal had a much worse rookie season than stephon marbury. Same with Tmac having a worse rookie season than booby jackson.

[Fenix]

Can somebody explain me the sick logic behind this? Paul had one of the best rookie seasons ever

Please tell me your joking

Looking only at PGs, I stand by my statement. There was an article a while ago (I think Hollinger was the author) that proved that. Tell, me which PG do you remember that had as much influence on his team (other that Magic) as Paul had in his rookie season? IMO, he was as valuable as Nash was for his team. And only one of your quotes say that he'd rather have Paul than Marvin. Others are indiferent or pro Marvin.

My point was that Chris Paul is already the top 3 PG (that's the hardest position to fill other than C) in the League at the age of 21 while Marvin's ceiling isn't one of the top SF in the game.

And their argument how the wouldn't get JJ if they had drafted Paul (because they say he wanted to play PG) is bullshit. JJ had three teams where he could go: Suns, Cavs and Hawks. Considering he'd be 4th and 3rd offensive option on the first two, the Hawks were the only option where he could be the man.

[Matthew]

If they are indifferent, it doesnt mean they want paul or marvin.

here was an article a while ago (I think Hollinger was the author) that proved that. Tell, me which PG do you remember that had as much influence on his team (other that Magic) as Paul had in his rookie season?

Point guards with more influence on their teams:
Jason Kidd with the Mavs/suns/nets
Penny with the Magic
Tim Hardaway with the warriors/heat
Stockton in 97, but not so much in 98
Payton with the sonics
Sam Cassell with the twolves in 2004, and even the clippers this season


But if you just want rookie pg's, which isnt what you asked for:
Marbury in 97 with the twolves
Kidd with the mavericks
Penny with the magic
Mark Jackson with the knicks

Thats just 4 of the top of my head. Theres no way what Paul did was "one of the best in the history of the league". Sure it was good, but it wasnt even better than what lebron did in his rookie year.

EDIT: missed a beauty:

My point was that Chris Paul is already the top 3 PG (that's the hardest position to fill other than C) in the League at the age of 21 while Marvin's ceiling isn't one of the top SF in the game.

whoa whoa whoa, he is above jason kidd, chauncey billups, steve nash, andre miller, jason terry, gilbert arenas and sam cassell? You're an idiot.

[Nick]

My point was that Chris Paul is already the top 3 PG (that's the hardest position to fill other than C) in the League at the age of 21 while Marvin's ceiling isn't one of the top SF in the game.

whoa whoa whoa, he is above jason kidd, chauncey billups, steve nash, andre miller, jason terry, gilbert arenas and sam cassell? You're an idiot.

I don't mean to nit-pick, but Andre Miller and Jason Terry aren't better than Chris Paul.

[Fenix]

I was talking about the rookie PGs and if you know anything about the game of basketball or its history, you would know that Kidd, Penny and Mark Jackson or frikkin' Marbury didn't mean as much for their teams than Paul did. He was by far the best player on a team that finished 38-44. Marbury (a joke of a player) played with an all-star in KG and another good player in Guggliotta but his team finished 40-42. Jackson had Ewin and Knicks finished 38-44. Kidd - 36-46 with Masburn and Jim Jackson. Penny is the only one from the bunch who played for a respectable team in his rookie season (50-32 Magic), but he wasn't nearly as good of a player than Paul was this year. And if you think Lebron had bigger influence than Paul did in his rookie season, you're a lost cause.

And if I say Paul is a top 3 PG, I also have a window for two players who I think are better at his position - Kidd and Nash. OK, I forgot Billups (who's more of a system player than a true PG), but he's still better than the rest of the players you have mentioned (Arenas plays SG in the Princeton offense).

[J@3]

I'd take Terry over Paul at this point in time.

And if you think Lebron had bigger influence than Paul did in his rookie season, you're a lost cause.

Wow

[Fenix]

And if you think Lebron had bigger influence than Paul did in his rookie season, you're a lost cause.

Wow

Yeah, you heard me right. I know it's a general opinion that Lebron is god and all that, but I think even Carmelo was more important for his team than Bron was. If you think Paul couldn't take the 2003/2004 Cavs to the playoffs, you're wrong (Ilgauskas, Boozer, even Darius Miles, Ricky Davis).

[Nick]

I'd take Terry over Paul at this point in time.

Really?

I'm not sure who is better on defense exactly. But Paul is better at just about everything else. Paul exels as a playmaker, Terry is just average (or bad, if you consider him a pg). Paul is better on the offensive end than Terry when taking into account their ppg and apg. Paul sets his team mates up aswell as scoring where terry only does one of those. Paul is a top 3 player in steals, Terry is not in top 25. Paul even crashes the boards, with 5 rpg. Which is amazing for a player 6'0".

Most importantly, Paul has an overall PER rating of 22.2 (18th in the league) as opposed to Terry's 18.6 (34th in the league) (link).

But what amazes me most about Paul, is that he is a leader, and a winner. As shown as he lead a team that is considered fairly "low" with their level of talent almost straight to the playoffs. Where as Terry proved he is not a leader in Atlanta when the team needed him most. And is most definetly not Dallas's leader.

The only thing that Terry has over Paul is his his impressive shooting percentage, but when you consider the roles of the 2 players on their teams, it's not really much of an arguement.

Paul is good in almost all facets of the game, where as Terry can't be considered as anywhere near that kind of player. It doesn't matter if Paul is a rookie, Paul is already better than Terry.

[Matt]

Paul is probably 4th best PG in the league right now....behind Kidd, Billups & Nash...

[eisfeld]

hmm I think he's right now on the same level with sam cassel. (No I don't mean stats-wise). He's a great contributor for his team and made the most impact as a rookie in the last few years. But considering him as a top 4 pg right now is too early.

[cyanide]

But considering him as a top 4 pg right now is too early.

Would considering LeBron a top 3 player be too early? They're the same age, and Paul did an excellent job in only his first year. If Paul's the only standout player on the team, the defense would have to really put emphasis on stopping him, but he's done a great job putting up respectable numbers and helping his team beyond expectations.

[benji]

Not that I entirely agree. But since I have Insider and quoting snippets isn't republishing...

But the impact of Paul's season doesn't really settle in until you compare him with other rookie guards. Off the top of your head, you might think it's fairly common for a rookie point guard to come in and play roughly as well as Paul has. Guess again.

Most rookie point guards, even the ones who turn out to be total studs, struggle mightily. Such greats as John Stockton, Gary Payton, Steve Nash, Mark Price, Gail Goodrich, Mo Cheeks and Tiny Archibald all had PERs below the league average as rookies. So for a guard such as Paul to come along and take over immediately is unusual.

...

As a result, Paul's rookie season stacks up well when compared with those of other rookie guards in NBA history. Very well. Shockingly well. Let's cut right to the chase. Here's a complete list of every guard in NBA history to post a better rookie PER than Paul's:

1. Oscar Robertson
2. Michael Jordan

Yes, that is the whole list. MJ and the Big O. In terms of PER, Paul is the best rookie guard in two decades and the best rookie point guard in 45 years.

...

Let's start with the one most of you will ask about: Magic.

As a rookie, Earvin Johnson averaged 18.0 points, 7.7 rebounds and 7.3 assists and shot 53.0 percent while leading the Lakers to a championship. You might think, then, that the Magic man was better than Paul as a rookie, but you'd have a tough time proving it.

...Paul's triple-double stats (points, rebounds, assists) as a rookie actually compare very well. Magic's scoring edge withers to almost nothing once you adjust for the difference in scoring between 1980 and 2006, and believe it or not, Paul has a much better assist ratio (percentage of possessions that end in an assist). The Magic man maintains an advantage in rebound rate, but it's much smaller than the disparity in per-game numbers would make you believe.

So what's the difference between Paul and Magic? Turnovers. The Magic man was a turnover machine as a young player (he set a record in the Finals that year with 10 in a single game), coughing it up far more often than Paul has (15.1 percent of possessions for Magic to 9.3 percent for Paul). So essentially, Paul is doing nearly all the things Magic did as a rookie but with substantially fewer turnovers. No, Paul won't be able to play center in Game 6 of the Finals, but short of that, it's hard to make a case for Johnson as the superior rookie.

...

Johnson was actually the best rookie guard after Jordan and Robertson before Paul came along. The next two closest were Vince Carter and Calvin Murphy, but both have obvious shortcomings to Paul as a passer and Paul has a much better true shooting percentage than either. The comparisons get more one-sided as we move further down the list.

...

If only two guards in the history of the league can match what he did as a rookie, does this destine Paul to become one of the best guards of all time?

Unfortunately, that conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Players improve at different rates for different reasons, and ironically, one factor that works against Paul is his low turnover rate. In general, players with a high turnover rate as young players tend to improve more in future seasons than their low-turnover counterparts. Even players who eventually became low-turnover guys, like Chauncey Billups, had high rates as rookies.

...

Most guards improve massively over the course of their first three pro seasons. If Paul follows anywhere close to that trend line, he's going to be the best point guard in basketball within a year or two.

Additionally, it's not hard to see where the improvement might come. Paul's shooting percentages have substantial room for increase, and his form is good enough to suggest he'll find the range once he gets used to the pro 3-point line. Plus, Paul is only 20 years old, so he might develop further physically, too.

[Axel]

Does it honestly matter what Hawks fans say? I don't know of anyone who is a Hawks fan, and I dont even live far from Atlanta. The franchise has proven to be horrible at competing, and spending money on players, and now apparently in drafting.

[magius]

knowing hawks fans it was probably more like hawk fan.

that said we don't know who was the better pick yet. Paul may just be short term and is possibly topped out (ala stoudamire). i don't believe that, but its possible. And Marvin may be the next tmac-garnett hybrid. I don't believe that either based on his career in duke... but get the drift, its possible. If it were me though I would probably take paul, though williams has massive physical potential. If i were atlanta I would've taken paul seeing as they are loaded on the wing, the "fan" is just bitter.

[Yessie]

CP3 made the Hornets alot better and i stress the word ALOT