So recently the Bill James of basketball wrote, imo, a brilliant article on how great a rookie season chris paul had. Better than Magic's? yep. Better than AI's? Yep. better than Stockton's? Nash? Calvin Murphy? Gail Goodrich? Yes yes yes yes and yes. How about 3rd best ever among any guard? Yes.
And he did this all in blindingly ugly uniforms!
I felt this deserves a thread because the fact that Paul's rookie season was perceived to be the best of a marginal draft class had to be disproven. And here it is: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2407284
For those that dont have espn insider here's some bits and pieces:
One reason is that his traditional stats don't jump off the page -- 16.1 points, 7.9 assists and 5.1 rebounds. That was sure as heck better than any other rookie this year, but didn't exactly evoke visions of Bird and Magic taking the league by storm. And he shot only 43.0 percent from the floor and 28.2 percent on 3-pointers, so one might think he wasn't terribly efficient, either.
For starters, he took a ton of free throws. Paul averaged six free throws per game, or about one for every two field goal attempts -- a ridiculously high rate for a point guard. Thus, even without a good shooting percentage or many 3-pointers, his true shooting percentage was 54.6 percent -- placing him 10th among point guards.
Placing 10th doesn't sound overly impressive until you start going down the line and realizing Paul was in the upper tier of his position in every category. Of the possessions he used, 31.4 percent ended with an assist -- that put him 9th. He turned it over on just 9.4 percent of the possessions he used -- that was 11th best. And he was an obscenely good rebounder, ranking second only to Jason Kidd among point guards in rebound rate.
Leaguewide, Paul's mark ranked 20th -- ahead of the PERs of Carmelo Anthony and Vince Carter.
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 was the best rookie guard in two decades and the best rookie point guard in 45 years.
You really need to read the whole thing though to be honest. If you love basketball its a fascinating argument. Hollinger deftly dismisses Magic, Stockton and everyone else short of MJ and Oscar in showing how effective paul was as a rookie. Combined with the fact that many guards, much like wr's, dont "break out" until their 3rd year and Paul being only 20 it is scary to think how good chris paul can become.
And he did this all in blindingly ugly uniforms!
I felt this deserves a thread because the fact that Paul's rookie season was perceived to be the best of a marginal draft class had to be disproven. And here it is: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2407284
For those that dont have espn insider here's some bits and pieces:
One reason is that his traditional stats don't jump off the page -- 16.1 points, 7.9 assists and 5.1 rebounds. That was sure as heck better than any other rookie this year, but didn't exactly evoke visions of Bird and Magic taking the league by storm. And he shot only 43.0 percent from the floor and 28.2 percent on 3-pointers, so one might think he wasn't terribly efficient, either.
For starters, he took a ton of free throws. Paul averaged six free throws per game, or about one for every two field goal attempts -- a ridiculously high rate for a point guard. Thus, even without a good shooting percentage or many 3-pointers, his true shooting percentage was 54.6 percent -- placing him 10th among point guards.
Placing 10th doesn't sound overly impressive until you start going down the line and realizing Paul was in the upper tier of his position in every category. Of the possessions he used, 31.4 percent ended with an assist -- that put him 9th. He turned it over on just 9.4 percent of the possessions he used -- that was 11th best. And he was an obscenely good rebounder, ranking second only to Jason Kidd among point guards in rebound rate.
Leaguewide, Paul's mark ranked 20th -- ahead of the PERs of Carmelo Anthony and Vince Carter.
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 was the best rookie guard in two decades and the best rookie point guard in 45 years.
You really need to read the whole thing though to be honest. If you love basketball its a fascinating argument. Hollinger deftly dismisses Magic, Stockton and everyone else short of MJ and Oscar in showing how effective paul was as a rookie. Combined with the fact that many guards, much like wr's, dont "break out" until their 3rd year and Paul being only 20 it is scary to think how good chris paul can become.