Why Chris Paul is better than you think
By John Hollinger
Portland. Boston. Utah. Milwaukee. Atlanta. Charlotte. Toronto.
All of them, and perhaps a few other teams, could have had Chris Paul in the 2005 draft. And with each passing game, the mistake those teams made is becoming more and more obvious. Based on his rookie year, Paul has essentially been the next Magic Johnson ... only better.
"CP3" (not be confused with his pal R2-D2) almost single-handedly rejuvenated a reeling New Orleans/Oklahoma City team that was coming off an 18-64 season, had been forced to relocate just weeks before the season started and had traded its All-Star center in the offseason. With only a week to go, observers are stunned to see Paul's Hornets steadfastly clinging to life in the Western Conference playoff race. Already the Hornets have more than doubled last season's win total, and with a strong flourish, they could even crack the West's top eight.
As a result, Paul is going to win the Rookie of the Year award. Check that -- Paul is going to win unanimously, with a Jupiter-sized gap between him and whichever guy comes in second. (And if they gave out an award for having your jersey neatly tucked in at all times, he'd win that too.)
Paul's Rookie of the Year status is well known, of course ... so why am I bringing it up now? Because I don't think most people realize what a remarkable season Paul is putting together. At first glance, most folks think of his year as good, yes, but not great ... and certainly not historic.
One reason is that his traditional stats don't jump off the page -- 16.4 points, 7.9 assists and 5.3 rebounds. That's sure as heck better than any other rookie this year, but doesn't exactly evoke visions of Bird and Magic taking the league by storm. And he's shooting only 43.2 percent from the floor and 28.3 percent on 3-pointers, so one might think he's not terribly efficient, either.
But Paul is devastating in other ways. For starters, he takes a ton of free throws. Paul averages 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 is 54.9 percent -- placing him 10th among point guards.
Placing 10th doesn't sound overly impressive until you start going down the line and realizing Paul is in the upper tier of his position in every category. Of the possessions he uses, 31.3 percent end with an assist -- that puts him 10th. He turns it over on just 9.4 percent of the possessions he uses -- that's 11th best. And he's an obscenely good rebounder, ranking second only to Jason Kidd among point guards in rebound rate.
Add it all up and Paul's player efficiency rating of 22.35 is quite impressive. It ranks fifth overall at the point position, and it's that low only because the position is unusually strong this year. Chauncey Billups, Steve Nash, Gilbert Arenas and Allen Iverson are the point guards ahead of him, and all four are having career years in terms of PER. Leaguewide, Paul's mark ranks 17th -- ahead of the PERs of Carmelo Anthony, Ray Allen and Vince Carter.
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.
The same is almost as true for shooting guards. Only a rare few can come in and star immediately. Even the greats tend to do what Dwyane Wade and Clyde Drexler did -- have a rookie season during which they occasionally star and leave obvious hints of their enormous potential, but don't consistently put up All-Star numbers.
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.
You were looking for some other names? Sorry, they don't stack up.
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.
Despite Magic's having become synonymous with the triple-double, 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.
Top Rookie Seasons by Guards in NBA History (Ranked By PER)
PLAYER SEASON TEAM PTS/40 REB/40 AST/40 TS% PER
Oscar Robertson '60-61 Cincinnati 28.6 9.4 9.1 55.5 25.9*
Michael Jordan '84-85 Chicago 29.4 6.8 6.1 59.2 25.8
Chris Paul '05-06 NO/OC 18.1 5.8 8.7 54.9 22.4
Magic Johnson '79-80 Los Angeles 19.9 8.5 8.1 60.2 20.6
Vince Carter '98-99 Toronto 20.8 6.4 3.4 51.6 19.6
Calvin Murphy '70-71 San Diego 25.7 4.9 6.5 53.2 19.4*
Steve Francis '99-'00 Houston 20.0 5.9 7.3 54.3 18.4
Allen Iverson '96-97 Philadelphia 23.5 4.1 7.4 51.3 18.0
Rod Strickland '88-89 New York 21.2 4.7 9.4 53.9 18.0
Andre Miller '99-'00 Cleveland 17.5 5.4 9.1 51.7 17.9
* NBA didn't track individual turnovers before 1977-78; PER relies on estimate for turnovers.
And so it goes down the line. 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.
Having done this exercise, we find ourselves pondering a much bigger question: How good can this guy be? 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.
However, another trend should strongly outweigh the one above: 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.
So although he might not (or might) end up being the caliber of player the Big O and Jordan were, that's about all we can say about Paul's ceiling. He's already as good as nearly any other point guard in game today, and as he learns his craft and develops his jumper, he'll only get better. Not bad for a guy who, in one way or another, saw seven teams pass on him in the draft.
4/13/2006 7:26 PM
