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

[Its_asdf]

Marvin definitely has more potential, but how will he ever achieve that in Atlanta? He's got Josh Smith and Childress in front of him and they both also take up a lot of playing time. Paul would have been a smart choice because he would have gotten the minutes to be effective on a team that desperately needed what he brought to the table. Paul would have been better in terms of what the team needed, but Marvin still does have a bright future ahead of him if he can start getting some minutes.

Everyone also thinks that Paul singlehandedly turned that team around. David West came back from injuries and tore it up, Speedy Claxton was spectacular off the bench and they got rid of players that didn't want to be there (Davis and Magloire). Sure Paul definitely deserves some recognition for success, but there are so many other reasons why the Hornets played as well as they did.

[The_Flying_Tomato]

You have been banned from this forum.
Please contact the webmaster or board administrator for more information.

ehehehehe


EDIT: the hawks fans tend to be illogical over there. they insist that Joe J will be their savior and take them to the playoffs in the next couple years.

[Drex]

You're banned from this forum? Yay!

[The_Flying_Tomato]

yes, that's how i'm posting here.

[Matt]

Hawks are a mess right now....they need to make decisions on who they keep and who goes. They need a PG & a C desperately.

[The_Flying_Tomato]

Wonder what they'll do with Harrington...

[J@3]

You can't really make an individual player comparison without taking into account the teams they play on.

I'm not sure who is better on defense exactly.

Terry.

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).

Bad?

Paul is better on the offensive end than Terry when taking into account their ppg and apg.

Well if we're going to do it statistically, Jason Terry is playing with Dirk Nowitzki, Jerry Stackhouse, Josh Howard, Marquis Daniels, Erick Dampier, Devin Harris etc etc... Chris Paul has David West, Desmond Mason and PJ Brown. Of course he's going to score more. The apg could be explained by 1) the individual style of play, and 2) Terry isn't "the man" on this Dallas team, unlike Paul. The ball isn't in his hands as much.

Plus, Terry is averaging 1ppg more in 1mpg less.

Better team = less workload. On other teams Terry has averaged mostly over 5apg, and at one point 7.4apg... for that awful Atlanta team. It's fairly obvious his numbers are a result of the system he's playing in.

Paul sets his team mates up aswell as scoring where terry only does one of those.

Terry's teammates don't seem to be suffering. Just because he isn't getting the assist numbers doesn't mean he can't set anyone up, Marbury averaged 8apg for most of his career.

Paul's supporting cast:
David West: 17.1ppg
Speedy Claxton: 12.3ppg
Desmond Mason: 10.8ppg

Terry's supporting cast:
Nowitzki: 26.6ppg
Howard: 15.6ppg
Stackhouse: 13.0ppg
Daniels: 10.2ppg

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).

Meh.

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.

This is where you start to get things wrong. Off the top of your head, do you know New Orleans record? No you don't, so I'll tell you they finished 38-44... after the All-Star break they went 9-21... so I'm not sure how much of a "winner" he is. That's not even taking into account the fact that Speedy Claxton came in and was virtually identical when Paul was injured.

And is most definetly not Dallas's leader.

What did you expect him to do, take it from Nowitzki? Here's something:

Steve Nash's last season at Dallas: 52-30
Jason Terry's first season at Dallas: 58-24
Jason Terry's second season at Dallas: 60-22

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.

But you consider everything else a useful argument without looking at the roles they play.

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.

If you say so, I suggest you get over the hype and watch Dallas and New Orleans play sometimehttp://bt.davka.info/ here You're acting like Terry is some NBDL scrub and Chris Paul is the best thing to ever happen. Would Dallas trade Terry for Paul? Of course they would, but there's almost no teams in the NBA who wouldn't trade their PG for him... hell, even New Jersey would be tempted, not to mention Phoenix. Does that make him better than Kidd, Nash etc?

People get too caught up in NO's early season play-off run and ignore the fact they got completely destroyed after the All-Star break. Then there's the Speedy Claxton situation, where he virtually put up the same numbers as Paul as a starter and the team didn't seem to miss a beat.

[Andrew]

Sounds more like fans (and not everyone is rushing to agree wholeheartedly with the original poster) of a basement team trying to put a positive spin on what has been a tough season and downplaying the suggestion the team might be better off had they made a different selection in last year's draft.

[The_Flying_Tomato]

where does jason terry come into the conversation?

[gergerjai]

Glad I'm not a hawks' fan.

[Matthew]

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).

How many times are you going to change "what you meant"? First it was "Paul had one of the best rookie seasons ever", then it became "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?" and now its become "I was talking about the rookie PGs". What will it be next, "chris paul is the greatest pg to come out of wake forest with the last name paul and the first name chris"? Make your fucking mind up.

The poing guards I've listed:
Mark Jackson, his team imrpoved 14 games. Jackson also averaged 13.6 ppg, 10.6 apg and 5 rpg

Jason Kidd, 23 game improvement, 12 ppg, 8 apg and 5 rpg

Marbury, 14 game improvement, 16 ppg, 8 apg, 3 rpg

Penny, 9 game improvement, 16 ppg, 6.6 apg, 5.4 rpg

Lebron, 18 game improvement, 20 ppg, 6 apg, 5.5 rpg

Compare that to Paul's 16 ppg, 7.8 apg and 5 rpg and I fail to genuinely see a massive difference that seperates paul from the rest.

You also contradict yourself by listing all the fantatsic players Marbury, Kidd and Jackson had, like thats the reason for the improvement of their ballclubs, then you go on to say "Penny is the only one from the bunch who played for a respectable team in his rookie season". So if Kidds, Marburys and Jacksons teams were respectable, were they their rookie seasons the reasons for their teams drematic improvements? If so, there is NOTHING that seperates these players from Paul.

And you call me a lost cause .

Arenas is listed as a pg, so he remains in my list. To say he doesnt belong is like saying Duncan is really a centre, Kg is really a small forward, so jermaine oneal is the best power forward.

If you think Paul couldn't take the 2003/2004 Cavs to the playoffs, you're wrong (Ilgauskas, Boozer, even Darius Miles, Ricky Davis).

Yeah, Paul is just like Nash! He makes his teamates better, but Lebron doesnt. Hey if lebron doesnt make his teamates better, how good must be to win 17 extra games by either not helping or being a detriment to his ballclub?

[Fenix]

How many times are you going to change "what you meant"? First it was "Paul had one of the best rookie seasons ever", then it became "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?" and now its become "I was talking about the rookie PGs". What will it be next, "chris paul is the greatest pg to come out of wake forest with the last name paul and the first name chris"? Make your fucking mind up.

The only time I changed my mind was going from 'one of the best rookie seasons ever' to limiting that only to PGs. Other is a seperate statement.

The poing guards I've listed:
Mark Jackson, his team imrpoved 14 games. Jackson also averaged 13.6 ppg, 10.6 apg and 5 rpg

Jason Kidd, 23 game improvement, 12 ppg, 8 apg and 5 rpg

Marbury, 14 game improvement, 16 ppg, 8 apg, 3 rpg

Penny, 9 game improvement, 16 ppg, 6.6 apg, 5.4 rpg

Lebron, 18 game improvement, 20 ppg, 6 apg, 5.5 rpg

Compare that to Paul's 16 ppg, 7.8 apg and 5 rpg and I fail to genuinely see a massive difference that seperates paul from the rest.

Mark Jackson had an improving Ewing by his side who played his first full season and a healthy team.

With Kidd, you proved your point, but he had a returning Ron Tarpley and an improving duo of Mashburn and Jackson by his side.

Marbury was playing with KG who made a HUGE step from the previous season. I have seen games from Marbury's rookie season and he WASN'T even remotely in the same universe as point guards go as Paul. He's all numbers and we all know numbers doesn't mean shit, especially when it comes to Starbury.

Penny - Dennis Scott was healthy for an entire season and Shaq made a giant leap in his game.

My point - all those players had either a very solid All-star caliber players who were still improving or a HoF talent - KG, Ewing, Shaq, all of them in their 2nd seasons (except Ewing - his third) and all of them had made a drastic improvement from their rookie seasons on both ends of the court. Kidd was the only one from the players you've mentioned whose team won more games than a year before than Paul's Hornets (20 games improvement). But you forget to mention that Paul had much less talent to work with than any of the aforementioned - he had a lot to do with David West's improvement (West's points come from his midrange game and the shots result from team ball-movement and Paul's assists). Surely, Desmond Mason's stats regressed, but that had more with the system the Hornets played. No to mention that all of your PGs had a post presence to pass the ball to and the Hornets had none. Kidd had Tarpley, Jackson Ewing, Marbury Guggliotta (and KG) and Penny Shaq.

You also contradict yourself by listing all the fantatsic players Marbury, Kidd and Jackson had, like thats the reason for the improvement of their ballclubs, then you go on to say "Penny is the only one from the bunch who played for a respectable team in his rookie season". So if Kidds, Marburys and Jacksons teams were respectable, were they their rookie seasons the reasons for their teams drematic improvements? If so, there is NOTHING that seperates these players from Paul.

I listed all those players to point out how much talent they had to work with and how little Paul had. And the rest of the paragraph does make no sense, at least to my minimal intelligence and limited knowledge of English.

Arenas is listed as a pg, so he remains in my list. To say he doesnt belong is like saying Duncan is really a centre, Kg is really a small forward, so jermaine oneal is the best power forward.

It's not the same thing. Duncan and KG just took a difference approach to the same position, while Arenas just doesn't play the position you claim he does. The only thing he does do and is PG-like, is bring the ball to the offensive end of the court. And he isn't listed as a PG, he's listed as a 'guard'. And even if you count him as a point guard, the only thing he does better than Paul is scoring. Paul beats him in defense, rebounding and playmaking, which are the things the PG position is all about.

If you think Paul couldn't take the 2003/2004 Cavs to the playoffs, you're wrong (Ilgauskas, Boozer, even Darius Miles, Ricky Davis).

Yeah, Paul is just like Nash! He makes his teamates better, but Lebron doesnt. Hey if lebron doesnt make his teamates better, how good must be to win 17 extra games by either not helping or being a detriment to his ballclub?

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said Lebron doesn't make his teammates better, I just said that Paul was better as rookie than Lebron was in his first season at doing that. And Boozer became a monster in Lebron's rookie season and he already had Ilgauskas to work with.

[Matthew]

Mark Jackson had an improving Ewing by his side who played his first full season and a healthy team.

With Kidd, you proved your point, but he had a returning Ron Tarpley and an improving duo of Mashburn and Jackson by his side.

Marbury was playing with KG who made a HUGE step from the previous season. I have seen games from Marbury's rookie season and he WASN'T even remotely in the same universe as point guards go as Paul. He's all numbers and we all know numbers doesn't mean shit, especially when it comes to Starbury.

Penny - Dennis Scott was healthy for an entire season and Shaq made a giant leap in his game

Thats where your contradiction lies. You say that Chris Paul was the reason for the turnaround in the hornets, but with Jackson, Penny, Lebron, and Kidd it was the other guys, the Jamal Masburns, the Denis Scotts, The Tom Gugiliatas as the reason their teams improved. But with the hornets, its all Paul? Thats a huge contradiction

My point - all those players had either a very solid All-star caliber players who were still improving or a HoF talent - KG, Ewing, Shaq, all of them in their 2nd seasons (except Ewing - his third) and all of them had made a drastic improvement from their rookie seasons on both ends of the court. Kidd was the only one from the players you've mentioned whose team won more games than a year before than Paul's Hornets (20 games improvement). But you forget to mention that Paul had much less talent to work with than any of the aforementioned - he had a lot to do with David West's improvement (West's points come from his midrange game and the shots result from team ball-movement and Paul's assists). Surely, Desmond Mason's stats regressed, but that had more with the system the Hornets played. No to mention that all of your PGs had a post presence to pass the ball to and the Hornets had none. Kidd had Tarpley, Jackson Ewing, Marbury Guggliotta (and KG) and Penny Shaq.

All of them had all star talent? Mashburn would make the all star team 10 years after Kidds rookie season, and you call that an all star? Using your above criteria for Penny and Kidd and Jackson and lebron, David West was just developing and it wasnt pauls play that made him better. Now do you see the contradiction? Probably not.


As for Tarpley he didnt even start a game that season. Some impact.

I listed all those players to point out how much talent they had to work with and how little Paul had. And the rest of the paragraph does make no sense, at least to my minimal intelligence and limited knowledge of English.

You yourself said "Penny is the only one from the bunch who played for a respectable team in his rookie season". That means Kidds, Lebrons and Jacksons teams werent respectable in your eyes, yet they all had significant jump in the standings, but yet their teams werent "respectable"? So what was the reason for the jump? It had to be the addition of the rookie point guard.

Duncan and KG just took a difference approach to the same position

Lol so Duncan plays differently when he plays centre to power forward? Same with kg when he plays pf or sf? I dont think you actually watch the games buddy.

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said Lebron doesn't make his teammates better, I just said that Paul was better as rookie than Lebron was in his first season at doing that. And Boozer became a monster in Lebron's rookie season and he already had Ilgauskas to work with.

SO explain these gems "If you think Paul couldn't take the 2003/2004 Cavs to the playoffs, you're wrong (Ilgauskas, Boozer, even Darius Miles, Ricky Davis)." or "And if you think Lebron had bigger influence than Paul did in his rookie season, you're a lost cause. "
Considering the cavs had an 18 game improvement with lebron, how can you say he didnt have as big of an impact as paul without implying he doesnt help his teamates?

[llobarreret]

Hello all!
I think the point is that Chris and his leadership almost drives Hornets to the Playoffs. No one of you thought, neither me, at the beggining of the season, that the Hornets could have 38 winnings. Maybe no one in the whole world. Paul makes his partners better and will be the best PG in the league. Just wait the development of some players and any possitive trade for New Orleans.
Cheers!

[Fenix]

[quote=
All of them had all star talent? Mashburn would make the all star team 10 years after Kidds rookie season, and you call that an all star? Using your above criteria for Penny and Kidd and Jackson and lebron, David West was just developing and it wasnt pauls play that made him better. Now do you see the contradiction? Probably not.[/quote]

My point is that all of them had very good players around him, while Paul doesn't have anyone as good as those guys. David West's stats are just Malone-like bloated, because of the team passing that Paul intiates, the scoring opportuinities he creates and pick&roll he plays.

As for Tarpley he didnt even start a game that season. Some impact.

I think every over 10ppg post scorer is worth something, don't you?

You yourself said "Penny is the only one from the bunch who played for a respectable team in his rookie season". That means Kidds, Lebrons and Jacksons teams werent respectable in your eyes, yet they all had significant jump in the standings, but yet their teams werent "respectable"? So what was the reason for the jump? It had to be the addition of the rookie point guard.

No, they weren't respectable record-wise, but their jump was, if that's what you mean. I tried to prove that their leap in the standings is caused by improvement or health of great talents around them (and Shaq, Ewing and KG aren't just 'another' players) and other additions of their teams.

Lol so Duncan plays differently when he plays centre to power forward? Same with kg when he plays pf or sf? I dont think you actually watch the games buddy.

No, they play different when they both play PF. Tim is more of a inside-outside PF, while KG is exactly the opposite. That doesn't mean they don't play the same position, because someone on their teams has to. The situation with Arenas is completely different because the Princeton offense allows him to shoot a lot (a 'shooting' guard) and he doesn't need to playmake, which is the basic role of a PG.

SO explain these gems "If you think Paul couldn't take the 2003/2004 Cavs to the playoffs, you're wrong (Ilgauskas, Boozer, even Darius Miles, Ricky Davis)." or "And if you think Lebron had bigger influence than Paul did in his rookie season, you're a lost cause. "
Considering the cavs had an 18 game improvement with lebron, how can you say he didnt have as big of an impact as paul without implying he doesnt help his teamates?

Paul was a better player than Lebron was in his rookie season (especiall on D) and would be a much better fit into Cavs' offense with Z and Boozer and the post, and they wouldn't have to trade Davis because of the fear that he would clash with LBJ. But even if they'd do, they'll still have a better record.

[Scotty]

it's simple it's hard to except things like this when you are so horribly wrong.

[Matthew]

My point is that all of them had very good players around him, while Paul doesn't have anyone as good as those guys. David West's stats are just Malone-like bloated, because of the team passing that Paul intiates, the scoring opportuinities he creates and pick&roll he plays.

So how did Jimmy Jackson go without Kidd alongside him? Same with Dennis Scott or Nick Anderson without Penny? How has Bozzer gone without Lebron? How was Illguaskas before James got their as well?

See, your using selective reasoning to justify why Paul is better than those guys, and its creating a double standard. How do you know Kirk Snyder wont be a furture all star, or David West will ever be an all nba 1st 2nd or 3rd team member? You don't, do you? And yet your using hindseight to say "well James, Jackson and Penny all had good players around them and thats been proven by what they've done later in their careers". If that was true, and thats what your basing your entire arguement on, shouldnt you wait until Paul is in his 10th or so season to see how his rookie teamates performed?

I think every over 10ppg post scorer is worth something, don't you?

You don't see to think so juding from this quote in your post; "My point is that all of them had very good players around him, while Paul doesn't have anyone as good as those guys. David West's stats are just Malone-like bloated, because of the team passing that Paul intiates, the scoring opportuinities he creates and pick&roll he plays."

No, they weren't respectable record-wise, but their jump was, if that's what you mean. I tried to prove that their leap in the standings is caused by improvement or health of great talents around them (and Shaq, Ewing and KG aren't just 'another' players) and other additions of their teams.

They weren't respectable record wise? New Orleans won 38 games, compare that to the Knicks who won 38 games with Mark Jackson, 36 games by the mavs with Kidd, and 35 wins by the cavs with lebron.
So you're saying that 38 wins with Paul is acceptable, but 38 with jackson isnt, and 36 by kidd and 35 by james also isnt. I think you'e scrambling for any kind of justification as to why Paul is so much better.

No, they play different when they both play PF. Tim is more of a inside-outside PF, while KG is exactly the opposite.

I'm tempted to ask how much basketball you've actually watched. Duncan plays exactly the same whether he's listed at the 5 or the 4, and Kg plays exactly the same regardless of if he's listed at the 4 or 3.

The situation with Arenas is completely different because the Princeton offense allows him to shoot a lot (a 'shooting' guard) and he doesn't need to playmake, which is the basic role of a PG.

So who is the pg on their team, Brendan Haywood? . Now before you jump on that and say "you dont need a pg", i disagree. He's the one who, despite taking alot of shots, initates the offense, which is the most basic principal of being a pg.

Paul was a better player than Lebron was in his rookie season (especiall on D) and would be a much better fit into Cavs' offense with Z and Boozer and the post, and they wouldn't have to trade Davis because of the fear that he would clash with LBJ. But even if they'd do, they'll still have a better record.

What exactly are you basing the defense comparison on? I'm still baffled as to why you are so certain that Paul would have made a bigger impact on cleveland than lebron did.

[Fenix]

So how did Jimmy Jackson go without Kidd alongside him? Same with Dennis Scott or Nick Anderson without Penny? How has Bozzer gone without Lebron? How was Illguaskas before James got their as well?

Jim Jackson's season before Kidd: 19.2ppg ... after Kidd was gone: 15.9. With Kidd on the same team he had his best seasons, be he also was a featured scorer.

Nick Anderson's season before Penny: 19.9ppg and with Penny: 15.9 and that number got smaller with every season passed. Dennis Scott's season before Penny: 15.9ppg and with Penny: 12.8ppg. So those two actually got statistically worse with Penny on their team. What's your point again ?

Boozer after Lebron: 17.2ppg in two seasons with Jazz. Compare that with 15.5ppg with Lebron by his side and the difference between those numbers would be much greater if Boozer wasn't always injured for those past two seasons. And keep in mind that Jazz are a team with at least as many offensive options as the 2003/04 Cavs were.

And Ilgauskas's season before Lebron came to the Cavs was actually his best one.

See, your using selective reasoning to justify why Paul is better than those guys, and its creating a double standard. How do you know Kirk Snyder wont be a furture all star, or David West will ever be an all nba 1st 2nd or 3rd team member? You don't, do you? And yet your using hindseight to say "well James, Jackson and Penny all had good players around them and thats been proven by what they've done later in their careers". If that was true, and thats what your basing your entire arguement on, shouldnt you wait until Paul is in his 10th or so season to see how his rookie teamates performed?

Perhaps Snyder, West and J.R. Smith are future Hall of Famers, but they aren't the players Ewing, KG, Shaq, Ilgauskas and Boozer already were when your guys came into the League. So your argument is completely irrelevant.

You don't see to think so juding from this quote in your post; "My point is that all of them had very good players around him, while Paul doesn't have anyone as good as those guys. David West's stats are just Malone-like bloated, because of the team passing that Paul intiates, the scoring opportuinities he creates and pick&roll he plays."

See, I mentioned before that West isn't a post scorer, but relies strictly on his midrange game.

They weren't respectable record wise? New Orleans won 38 games, compare that to the Knicks who won 38 games with Mark Jackson, 36 games by the mavs with Kidd, and 35 wins by the cavs with lebron.
So you're saying that 38 wins with Paul is acceptable, but 38 with jackson isnt, and 36 by kidd and 35 by james also isnt. I think you'e scrambling for any kind of justification as to why Paul is so much better.

I never said that Paul's Hornets are a great team, I just said that Penny was the only one from the players you have mentioned that played on a respectable team (50 win Magic). I don't see how I tried to justify anything by observating that.

I'm tempted to ask how much basketball you've actually watched. Duncan plays exactly the same whether he's listed at the 5 or the 4, and Kg plays exactly the same regardless of if he's listed at the 4 or 3.

Yes, I know that. So your point is - you are what you're listed at? If Arenas is listed as a PG, he is one? Well, you got me there. I agre with you, Arenas is normally still the initiator and is therefore the closest thing to a real OG on that Wizards squad. (although this brings us to an another dillema - was Pippen a point guard? Is Odom a point guard?)

What exactly are you basing the defense comparison on? I'm still baffled as to why you are so certain that Paul would have made a bigger impact on cleveland than lebron did.

With more precise playmaking. More mature decisions. (Midrange) jumpshot to stretch the defense. With defense on the opposing PGs which those Cavs lacked. With creating more scoring opportunities for their post players. Statistically, he wouldn't take a lot away from the 2003/04 team, only a bit of scoring, which he would replace with more assists and scoring opportunities for his teammates. Perhaps even with leaving room for keeping Ricky Davis/Darius Miles or at least trading them for a swingman.

[Matthew]

I'm going to do my best to not use quotes, so this doesnt turn into a complete and utter marathon.

I'll concede the "how did the Nick Anderson and Boozer stats, but you can't really compare that to what Paul did becuase Nick Anderson, Jim jackson, Denis Scott etc were all starters before Penny and Kidd arrived. The players around Chris Paul had been on the bench for most of their careers, so of course with added minutes their production goes up. Is this also assisted by pauls arrivial? its possible, just not definate.

Perhaps Snyder, West and J.R. Smith are future Hall of Famers, but they aren't the players Ewing, KG, Shaq, Ilgauskas and Boozer already were when your guys came into the League. So your argument is completely irrelevant.

Kg was not an all star before Marbury arrived, neither was Jim Jackson, Jamal Mashburn or Denis scott. As I mentioned before, alot of these guys were behind veterans players before this season, in similar situations to what jermaine oneal was in in portland. How do you know that Snyder and West wont become good players, compariable to Boozer or Illguskas? You don't, and yet you are willing to say lebron had great teamates in his rookie year becuase of how well these guys have perfomed later in their careers, therefore it wasnt lebron who was responsible for the record jump.

Thats a double standard, and is relivant.

See, I mentioned before that West isn't a post scorer, but relies strictly on his midrange game.

Like theres a difference between a post scorer and one who gets his points from pick and rolls.

I never said that Paul's Hornets are a great team, I just said that Penny was the only one from the players you have mentioned that played on a respectable team (50 win Magic). I don't see how I tried to justify anything by observating that.

Considering it was a direct comparison to Paul's hornets, and your reply was "well they didnt have respectable teams", one could assume you were implying that pauls team was indeed respectable. if you weren't, what did you mean? if you say you meant nothing, that those guys didnt have respectable teams and nothing more was meant to be drawn from it, your as big of a liar as EG, who is completely vague with his comments, and then pretends he meant nothing by them.

With more precise playmaking. More mature decisions. (Midrange) jumpshot to stretch the defense. With defense on the opposing PGs which those Cavs lacked. With creating more scoring opportunities for their post players. Statistically, he wouldn't take a lot away from the 2003/04 team, only a bit of scoring, which he would replace with more assists and scoring opportunities for his teammates. Perhaps even with leaving room for keeping Ricky Davis/Darius Miles or at least trading them for a swingman.

But what are you actually drawing these conclusions from? Better defender, smarter decisions, better scoring % etc, is this all your imagination?

[scrub]

gd topic very interesting readin each persons standpoint on the chris paul-jason terry argument.

personally like most people i would take chris paul over jason terry for numerous reasons such as age and leadership. also you must look at it from this perspective. imagine they got traded for one another. what would each team be performing like. imo the hornets would be worse-off because jason terry fails to lead a team and take repsonsibilty (eg - hawks). the mavs would be better off because chris paul is the better defensive player and adds extra dimension to the team. he will give you points like terry, more rebounds, more asists and more steals. this effectively would make dallas a better team and would also take pressure off nowitzki having to go out each putting up 26 and 9 to give the mavs the win. terry would not do that, he may give the team 17 points a night but can he step up when hes needed and win the mavs a game in the 4th without nowitzki. paul can because hes a leader and he has been doing it all season for the hornets.

[J@3]

He lead them to a 9-21 record after the all-star break.

[dada]

Didnt Terry win a game or so for them this year. I think Terry is an awesome player. Underrated. Chris Paul is great but if he was that great a leader they wouldnt have disappeared like that. Terry's team is doing quite fine about now and you shouldnt knock him jus cuz he got Dirk..

[Fenix]

On the topic of Paul making his teammates better: if we look at David West, who is the most mentioned case - his points per game average nearly tripled but his minutes were less than twice as much as they were a year before. From the players you have mentioned, only Kidd seems to have a significant positive effect on his teammates because both Mashburn and Jim Jackson had career years. Of course, KG also improved but that was his second season, he was straight out of HS (West is gonna be 26 years old, not exactly the normal age for a player to improve) and we are talking about Marbury here.

And I didn't know Dennis Scott was an All Star (after Penny arrived), but the stats still prove that he actually got statistically significantly worse with Penny's arrival.

As I said before, West's game improved a lot because of playing with a true PG and so did Snyder. Snyder's minutes haven't rose as much as one would expect but it is clear that his game improved, manly of the timely passes by Paul, either on the fast break or in the halfcourt offense. The thing is, Ilgauskas and Boozer were already very, very good players in Lebron's rookie season while that can be only said for West. Let's be real, Lebron had Ilgauskas, a top 3 offensive centre to work with and Boozer, one of the better rebounding forwards (it's not like Lebron had a lot of effect on his rebounding)in the league, who was Cavs' garbage man on offense and therefore hasn't gained a lot by playing with LBJ. Those two players were good before James joined the squad and Boozer also proved that he can score without Lebron being around (which, like you observe, I already mentioned). That simply isn't the case with Paul and his teammates.

Like theres a difference between a post scorer and one who gets his points from pick and rolls.

Well, life is harder for a post player than for a guy who scores with jumpers on a pick&roll .

Considering it was a direct comparison to Paul's hornets, and your reply was "well they didnt have respectable teams", one could assume you were implying that pauls team was indeed respectable. if you weren't, what did you mean? if you say you meant nothing, that those guys didnt have respectable teams and nothing more was meant to be drawn from it, your as big of a liar as EG, who is completely vague with his comments, and then pretends he meant nothing by them.

It was more of a general observation that none of those players made their teams into a championship contender/serious playoff team right away, so they didn't have an edge over Paul in that area.

But what are you actually drawing these conclusions from? Better defender, smarter decisions, better scoring % etc, is this all your imagination?

From watching the Hornets/Cavs play? From stats (look at the turnovers, for instance)? LBJ was a much poorer shooter than Paul is right now, although they shooting % doesn't show that, but LBJ drove to the basket more and therefore his % rose. I'm sure benji has some stats available that prove that Paul midrange jumpers % is greater than Lebron's was in his rookie season.

[air gordon]

about the terry vs paul disccusion...

Terry wasn't really a "play-maker" this year in Dallas. Avery Johnson wanted Terry to become Dallas #2 s scorer. Now I'm not exactly sure why Coach Johnson did this- perhaps because Terry is more of a natural scorer then passer, but it seemes to have been a wise coaching decision- Terry again had a fine shooting year and low turnover rate and more importantly Dallas won 60 games

Dallas likes to initiate the offense through Dirk and go from there. But Terry does have his chances to run the offense occasionally with the pick and roll.

Terry may not be the man, neither is Paul btw, but Terry still puts up more shots per game then him

and when Terry was 'the man' or had high assist numbers: his shooting %'s and TO's were subpar, nevermind those teams finished poorly

Jae- what were Claxton's #'s and the Hornets record when Paul was injured?

[J@3]

Jae- what were Claxton's #'s and the Hornets record when Paul was injured?

22.7ppg | 7.5apg | 3.2rpg | 2.0spg | 2.5tpg

And their record was 3-1