Is Chris Paul a Superstar?

Steve Nash or Chris Paul?

35 games into his fifth NBA season and Chris Paul and the New Orleans Hornets are currently 23-20, a mere five and half games in back of Southwest Division leading Dallas. The Hornets also find themselves in the thick of the playoff hunt, in a particularly stacked Western Conference.

Seemingly, the team's failure to be near the upper-rung of the Western Conference ladder appears to have severely hurt Chris Paul's credibility as an All-Star (coming in third, among West guards ).

This was further conceded by the TNT analysts (Charles Barkley, Ernie Johnson, Kenny Smith, and Chris Webber) who contended that Steve Nash had his team currently in position for the postseason, and thus as a result, had to be the better point guard of the first half (through 41 games).

Yet, statistically at least, it is Paul who seems to have put up the better first-half figures.

To be fair, Nash has been good; his scoring numbers are well above-average for a point guard (26.7 points/48 minutes). His efficiency shooting from the field has been blistering (currently, he boasts an Adjusted Field Goal Percentage of 58.8), and his 11.0 assists per game also continue to lead the league in per minute value.

However, despite some of his more phenomenal offensive numbers, Nash remains an atrocious ball-handler, leading the league in turnovers. This hurts more than some may realize, as Nash will concede about 40.3 percent of his team's possessions while out on the floor.

Paul hasn't been nearly as efficient in shooting the ball, declining considerably since his "hot" start to the season. Ultimately though, it hasn't been enough to affect his proverbial reign. Paul has still been the better point guard (by a fairly large margin), in part because of his taking much better care of the basketball. He also forces at least one turnover per turnover committed, whereas Nash's steals-to-turnovers ratio is an abysmal .5 to 4.0, respectively.

But perhaps, the most telling story can be seen when looking at wins produced.

The Story as Told by Wins Produced

As of the midway point of the regular season, Paul's contributed about 0.372 wins per 48 minutes. In a span of 1,344 minutes played (in 35 games), that's the equivalent of (roughly) 10.4 wins. In contrast, Nash contributes about 0.296 wins per 48 minutes. That's comparable to 9.2 wins after having played 1,495 minutes (in 45 games).

Looking at wp/48 (wins produced per 48 minutes) and the wins produced model, we can tell that among the top five point guards of 2009-10 , Paul still ranks first, whereas Nash currently ranks third.

Not only that, but Paul also currently ranks in the top five performers league-wide (fourth), behind none other than LeBron James.

Actually, despite his diminutive stature, he's been so dominant over the course of his five-year career that he's been regularly ranked amongst the top 10 most productive players four different times. In fact, in 2007-08 and in 2008-09 , Paul was the league's winningest athlete, accounting for 54.8 percent of his teams wins (one can surmise that Paul wasn't just snubbed once, but twice, of the league's MVP award).

In the last decade, no player has been this impactful since the start of their rookie season (this includes LeBron James, who has more recently developed into a phenomenal talent). And in the last fifteen, only Tim Duncan had a rookie campaign comparable to Paul's. Of course, Duncan hadn't been quite nearly as productive his first five years in the NBA.

One must truly look back in time, at the careers of Larry Bird, "Magic" Johnson, and Michael Jordan, in order to find similar production value (within the first five years of an NBA career).

So, is Chris Paul a superstar? No. He's developing into much more than that; his narrative is becoming legendary.