Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

[Jukeman]

Re: Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

Again, who's to say KD won't develop anymore?

He's yet to win a title and if he does so in the future, that accomplishment alone will exaggerate how good he has become lol which wouldn't be crazy if he actually did get better and became a good post player or a better defender.

Just saying.

[wwharton]

Re: Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

Actually I think it does matter why. We're talking potential not who's better right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Listing a trend of FG% declining from year to year is a way of evaluating potential. If you then add the argument that his FG% has dropped because he's gotten a bigger role, that can be further used as a reason to think his potential as a scorer isn't as great as we may have thought without this data.

He's being compared to someone who has been the main scoring threat on his team since entering the league, and has improved his FG% almost yearly and hasn't been anywhere near George's level since his rookie year.

I didn't introduce the FG% and am not just trying to use it against your boy. But to say "it's because he's been given a larger role" just hurts any debate because his role still isn't as large as Durant's, and Durant is trending in the opposite direction even with the large role.

He's well over a year older and has played 3 more seasons than PG. Let's not exaggerate things.

Look I think some of you take it as some sort of insult to KD to say PG has more potential. No one is saying he's better than him, not even close, but as I said what if Paul George develops into a good scorer? He's already a much better defender than Durant and he rebounds and assists the ball at about the same rate. If you think PG will never be a great scorer and stays at 17-20ppg the rest of his career, then alright, but no one here has directly said that(except ex). Everyone just keeps piling on with comments about how bad this thread is and saying KD is far better. lol

The thread really doesn't make sense though, that's the problem. Throwing out a bunch of what ifs to say a guy has the potential to possibly deserve being mentioned in the same conversation as someone else? It's not insulting bc it doesn't make sense, lol. Could we also say that since Lebron is closer to maxing out his potential that George has more potential than him right now? He's certainly got more potential than Kobe.

Do we really want to say this kid has a "higher ceiling" than sure fire Hall of Famers right now? And lets not forget the "potential" of Granger just a few years ago. Potential means squat, and this thread is comparing that to what someone is already doing and getting better at in their own right on a yearly basis.

[23]

Re: Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

Listing a trend of FG% declining from year to year is a way of evaluating potential. If you then add the argument that his FG% has dropped because he's gotten a bigger role, that can be further used as a reason to think his potential as a scorer isn't as great as we may have thought without this data.

He's being compared to someone who has been the main scoring threat on his team since entering the league, and has improved his FG% almost yearly and hasn't been anywhere near George's level since his rookie year.

I didn't introduce the FG% and am not just trying to use it against your boy. But to say "it's because he's been given a larger role" just hurts any debate because his role still isn't as large as Durant's, and Durant is trending in the opposite direction even with the large role.



The thread really doesn't make sense though, that's the problem. Throwing out a bunch of what ifs to say a guy has the potential to possibly deserve being mentioned in the same conversation as someone else? It's not insulting bc it doesn't make sense, lol. Could we also say that since Lebron is closer to maxing out his potential that George has more potential than him right now? He's certainly got more potential than Kobe.

Do we really want to say this kid has a "higher ceiling" than sure fire Hall of Famers right now? And lets not forget the "potential" of Granger just a few years ago. Potential means squat, and this thread is comparing that to what someone is already doing and getting better at in their own right on a yearly basis.

Whats funny about your post is this

All of the kids and guys who went on all of those tangents comparing todays players to All Time Greats and well deserved HOFs, even ones for silly reasons, its about to happen to them now... this is a preview of things to come.

[z Revis]

Re: Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

Listing a trend of FG% declining from year to year is a way of evaluating potential. If you then add the argument that his FG% has dropped because he's gotten a bigger role, that can be further used as a reason to think his potential as a scorer isn't as great as we may have thought without this data.

He's being compared to someone who has been the main scoring threat on his team since entering the league, and has improved his FG% almost yearly and hasn't been anywhere near George's level since his rookie year.

I didn't introduce the FG% and am not just trying to use it against your boy. But to say "it's because he's been given a larger role" just hurts any debate because his role still isn't as large as Durant's, and Durant is trending in the opposite direction even with the large role.

I don't agree with this. His FG% might be trending downward, but his scoring is trending upward. There's a difference between scoring and shooting. Carmelo Anthony for example has never been an efficient scorer, but he's always been a great scorer. He beat Durant for the scoring title while shooting like 7% less than him.

The thread really doesn't make sense though, that's the problem. Throwing out a bunch of what ifs to say a guy has the potential to possibly deserve being mentioned in the same conversation as someone else? It's not insulting bc it doesn't make sense, lol. Could we also say that since Lebron is closer to maxing out his potential that George has more potential than him right now? He's certainly got more potential than Kobe.

Do we really want to say this kid has a "higher ceiling" than sure fire Hall of Famers right now? And lets not forget the "potential" of Granger just a few years ago. Potential means squat, and this thread is comparing that to what someone is already doing and getting better at in their own right on a yearly basis.

Isn't potential just a giant what if anyway though? Gerald Green of all people has some potential, but he's proven by now he'll never live up to it.

When I look at players with potential, I see players with a lot of raw talent. IF they can work hard and improve their game, they may live up to it. Nothing is set in stone though. It's all if's.

Also I don't think Granger's potential was ever that high and he certainly wasn't looked at in the same way. The difference is PG can actually create his own shot and drive the ball to the basket in ways Granger never could. Also he's just an all around better player. Granger is more of a shooter. Definitely not as well rounded as George.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

1. Doesn't more shots usually mean lower FG%(for the most part)?

2. Wasn't it just a few years ago when Granger was being recognized as one of the more slept on/underrated players in the league and now his potential was never that high? Was it high enough to be as good as say a Lebron or Kobe(just naming examples)? No, but it was certainly high enough where he could've been known as one of the top 4-5 players at his position prior to his injuries.

Gerald Green of all people has some potential, but he's proven by now he'll never live up to it.

Potential to be one of the best dunkers in the last 13 years. And that's it.

[z Revis]

Re: Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

2. Wasn't it just a few years ago when Granger was being recognized as one of the more slept on/underrated players in the league and now his potential was never that high? Was it high enough to be as good as say a Lebron or Kobe(just naming examples)? No, but it was certainly high enough where he could've been known as one of the top 4-5 players at his position prior to his injuries.

Was it?

Honestly I don't remember people talking highly about Granger. Seemed like most people wanted to see him on a good team before passing judgement. Since he got his numbers playing on a lottery team.

Either way I don't think he was talked as highly as PG. PG is a different animal. Granger is mostly a shooter offensively and his defense is average.

Potential to be one of the best dunkers in the last 13 years. And that's it.

Maybe not the best example but you get my point. lol

[ojandpizza]

I agree with the posters in here who feel like the Durant/George comparison is bogus.. But this whole FG% argument is pointless and doesn't really mean anything at all to me. You can be a great player with a subpar FG% and you can be a crap player with excellent FG%..

I know from watching him play that George is becoming a better scorer and shooter as he progresses, the FG% number judging his potential means about as much as how many times he brushes his teeth per day in my opinion.. But with that being said I don't think his potential or ceiling or whatever you want to call it is at the level of Kevin Durant's, I just don't think pointing at his FG% is an accurate way of judging it.

[Jukeman]

Re: Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

I agree with the posters in here who feel like the Durant/George comparison is bogus.. But this whole FG% argument is pointless and doesn't really mean anything at all to me. You can be a great player with a subpar FG% and you can be a crap player with excellent FG%..

I know from watching him play that George is becoming a better scorer and shooter as he progresses, the FG% number judging his potential means about as much as how many times he brushes his teeth per day in my opinion.. But with that being said I don't think his potential or ceiling or whatever you want to call it is at the level of Kevin Durant's, I just don't think pointing at his FG% is an accurate way of judging it.

In this discussion it makes sense because the person in the discussion has a high FG% while leading the league in scoring for years..Its a measuring stick.

I think the key subject here is efficiency.

Would PG be as efficient as Durant while being a #1 option? The numbers says no. Yet we have a player named LeBron who is not a better shooter than Durant and has a all around game (like PG) sit here with a high FG% and is one if not the most efficient player in the league.

PG's PER was only 16.8 this season and was static for the playoffs..Last year it was 16.5 and he shot 44%, Not much of an improvement despite averaging 5 more points this year.

So yes, bringing up his FG% pattern is a valid point.

Does PG have high potential? Sure, but to say its higher than Durant says that he will eventually become a better player than Durant is right now.

[z Revis]

Re: Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

It makes sense because we're comparing him to a player with a high FG%?

The key subject is efficiency?

All we're talking about is potential man. lol. The key subjects should be which ways we think these players could improve. Not what PG's FG% or PER was this year. What does that have to do with him improving and reaching his potential?

Also I don't think because PG may have higher potential means he'll actually reach that potential and become better than Durant. I think that might be the issue some are having with this thread. Players can have good potential and easily not reach it. If someone says PG has more potential than player X, it doesn't mean he'll automatically become better than that player.

[Jukeman]

Re: Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

It makes sense because we're comparing him to a player with a high FG%?

The key subject is efficiency?

All we're talking about is potential man. lol. The key subjects should be which ways we think these players could improve. Not what PG's FG% or PER was this year. What does that have to do with him improving and reaching his potential?

Also I don't think because PG may have higher potential means he'll actually reach that potential and become better than Durant. I think that might be the issue some are having with this thread. Players can have good potential and easily not reach it. If someone says PG has more potential than player X, it doesn't mean he'll automatically become better than that player.

Then Ryan Hollins has the most potential in the NBA. That guy's talent is so low that his ceiling seems high..

I can write a book on some things he could work on....






I don't think scouts judge potential without data..

[d11king]

Re: Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

I'm surprised this thread is still going...

Not only another comparison, in which we're comparing a 3 year player who just won Most Improved Player to a guy who's been in the NBA for 6 seasons including multiple scoring championships, and on most blocks, is the 2nd best player in the league.

But none of us are analysts, "experts" or can predict the future. Paul George is a great young player, once we start comparing players to other players, we start pointing out the flaws and negatives of ones game (in this case his poor FG%) and that's unfair to the player. Paul George and Kevin Durant are both great young players in their own right. Lets enjoy their game by itself.

[z Revis]

Then Ryan Hollins has the most potential in the NBA. That guy's talent is so low that his ceiling seems high..

I can write a book on some things he could work on....






I don't think scouts judge potential without data..

I don't know what you're getting at here. By saying this you are basically saying PG has zero potential and he's now at his peak, just based on your previous post about his FG% and PER.

??

PG has the talent to get better. It's pretty obvious watching him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jukeman]

Re: Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

I don't know what you're getting at here. By saying this you are basically saying PG has zero potential and he's now at his peak, just based on your previous post about his FG% and PER.

??

PG has the talent to get better. It's pretty obvious watching him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I said that because talking about potential without data is a opinion based discussing making any answers nor right or wrong which is why this comparison thread doesn't make any sense.

At least with data, someone could at least predict a talent curve (PECOTA)

Im not saying PG doesn't have any potential, I just don't think its higher than KD's. Both players could use some improvements so I don't think KD reached his celling to began with.

[wwharton]

Re: Higher Ceiling, Paul George or Kevin Durant

I don't agree with this. His FG% might be trending downward, but his scoring is trending upward. There's a difference between scoring and shooting. Carmelo Anthony for example has never been an efficient scorer, but he's always been a great scorer. He beat Durant for the scoring title while shooting like 7% less than him.

You're arguing a point not being made, not defending your original statement. You tried to make the case that his FG% was low and going backwards bc he was filling a larger role.

My response was to demonstrate why that doesn't make sense. I never said he wasn't a good scorer, or a much improved scorer/player. But this a thread comparing him to a player who had a bigger role than George has now in his rookie year. He shot 51% from the field this year with a bigger role and bigger expectations. The excuse that George has a bigger role doesn't fly in comparison to Durant.

If you want to make the case that he has more potential than Durant, this definitely isn't helping.

Isn't potential just a giant what if anyway though? Gerald Green of all people has some potential, but he's proven by now he'll never live up to it.

When I look at players with potential, I see players with a lot of raw talent. IF they can work hard and improve their game, they may live up to it. Nothing is set in stone though. It's all if's.

Also I don't think Granger's potential was ever that high and he certainly wasn't looked at in the same way. The difference is PG can actually create his own shot and drive the ball to the basket in ways Granger never could. Also he's just an all around better player. Granger is more of a shooter. Definitely not as well rounded as George.

You just explained why this thread doesn't make sense. We can name a ton of players with "potential" so why pick just one... and then compare him to arguably the 2nd best player in the league, and a guy young enough to have even more room to grow himself?

Granger was being hyped, the only difference is George's defense. I think Granger's offense was probably hyped even more than George.

** Great posts, Jukeman.

I agree with the posters in here who feel like the Durant/George comparison is bogus.. But this whole FG% argument is pointless and doesn't really mean anything at all to me. You can be a great player with a subpar FG% and you can be a crap player with excellent FG%..

I know from watching him play that George is becoming a better scorer and shooter as he progresses, the FG% number judging his potential means about as much as how many times he brushes his teeth per day in my opinion.. But with that being said I don't think his potential or ceiling or whatever you want to call it is at the level of Kevin Durant's, I just don't think pointing at his FG% is an accurate way of judging it.

FG% doesn't determine his potential, but it also doesn't give any reason to believe his ceiling is higher than Durant's... and the excuse that it's because of a bigger role just points out something else Durant has done that George doesn't compare favorably to.

[z Revis]

Ok but no one is arguing that his low FG% does give a reason on why he has more potential.

55 is the one that brought that up only as a way to point out a flaw in his game.

People here have already given their reasons on why PG has more potential or may have it or doesnt have it or w/e.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk