Paul George is, by any estimation, a very good basketball player. There are maybe 15-20 people on the planet who are better at the sport than him, and this summer, the Oklahoma City Thunder decided to compensate him in a way that acknowledges his talent. Despite the fact that rumors existed for more than a year about his desire to head to Los Angeles and join his hometown Lakers, George and the Thunder came to terms on a four-year, $137 million deal.
Now that he’s getting paid like a star and his future is no longer up in the air, George can focus on creating a formidable two-headed monster with Russell Westbrook in Oklahoma City. It also begs the question: For a player who has long been one of the league’s more subtle superstars, how will success be defined during his time with the Thunder?
Two of our writers decided to dive into this topic on the heels of George’s 27-point outing in the Thunder’s opening night loss to Golden State. He was thrust into a relatively new role with the team, as he was asked to lead Oklahoma City with Westbrook sidelined following a procedure on his knee. While the Thunder came up short in the 108-100 loss, George reminded everyone that he is capable of going toe-to-toe with some of the best players in the league.
Bill: Chris, hi, hello. Let’s talk about Paul George — we both agree that he is a superstar, and we both agree that he’s among the more unique superstars in the NBA because of his willingness to go with the flow. In Oklahoma City, that means fill in whatever gaps pop up offensively (namely being able to stretch the floor) and, at least until Andre Roberson comes back, he’ll guard the opposing team’s best player on defense.
That’s really good! There aren’t many players as good on both ends of the floor as George, and even rarer is a player as willing to do all the stuff that George is willing to do while simultaneously being viewed as a superstar. But I think, and I’ll let you touch on this, that his willingness to fill in gaps and never really impose himself is what makes it so hard to figure out what will ultimately make his tenure in Oklahoma City successful.
Chris: I agree with you completely that George’s best attribute, especially in a place like Oklahoma City, is how well he can fit into a flow. The Thunder run a very basic offense — it involves a lot of pin down sets, pick and rolls, and Russell Westbrook driving at the rim like a madman. Having someone like George that does everything so well is really kind of perfect for them. They don’t need him to take over a game, that’s Westbrook’s role. They just need him to make that basic offense succeed at a high enough level to win games and defend like crazy on the other side of the ball. Basically, Westbrook puts pressure on a defense while George makes it tip over.
This is all fine for the Thunder, because they win games doing this, but it makes judging George and his decision to remain with Oklahoma City really difficult. If the Thunder go out this season and win 60 games while George puts up solid but not amazing numbers, we would likely call that a success for the Thunder, but is that a success for George? Team success is important, but we like seeing these superstar players at their highest level. We want to see individual accomplishment. It’s what leads to contracts, endorsements, and eventually the Hall of Fame. George is an All-NBA caliber player. Could the argument be made that, in the Thunder’s system, he is holding his own individual accomplishment back? Does that matter to him?
So I guess the question I would first ask is, what do we consider a failure for Paul George in Oklahoma City?
Bill: We’ve gotten to a point where superstars have to win championships, so on a more macro level, the answer is “Paul George and the Oklahoma City Thunder never win a title.” Of course, as long as Golden State exists in something resembling its current form and Daryl Morey is constantly doing everything he can to hoard superstars with the hopes of toppling the Warriors, it’s kind of hard to see a path to that happening. Anything can happen if, say, Kevin Durant decides he wants to live in New York and Chris Paul’s hamstrings explode, but who knows.
I also think that makes it hard to make the “championship or bust” standard the one to which George has to meet. No one ever says that, say, Anthony Davis’ inability to win a title makes him less of a superstar, but if you can find me one person who thinks the Pelicans are going to compete for a ring in the next two or three years, I’d love to meet them (this applies for Westbrook, too, now that I think about it). Sometimes, teams are undoubtedly better than yours, and you can fight like hell, but it doesn’t matter.
Plus, as long as it’s considered Westbrook’s team, it’s hard to place too much of the onus on George if the Thunder don’t win a title over the next four years, right?
Chris: Exactly that. The important thing for George on a personal level is that he’s happy. If he can be happy playing next to Westbrook and letting him be the face of the franchise that gets the credit for success then more power to him. He’s never shown to be the type of superstar player that has to have the attention of everything. However, then we get into legacy discussions and how much it means to be the number two guy to the one, or maybe it’s a discussion worth having that he’s the best player on the Thunder despite playing the No. 2 role.
As you said, this really does go back to the Warriors. The Thunder are in a position right now where they’re waiting for everything to break their way. They have a good team. They have a coach that has consistently given them a good defense. They have good management and an organizational culture that is already being admired across the league. There is a recipe for success here, but as long as arguably the greatest team in basketball history exists then the only thing George and the Thunder can do is bide time.
So if George wants the maximum success in Oklahoma City from a team standpoint then they need to find a way to either put a scare into the Warriors or constantly be the second best team in the West until something breaks their way. Best case scenario? You reach cult legend status and everybody admires you the way people talk about some of the almost teams Jordan stomped on in the 90’s, or maybe Stephen Curry retires early to start a golf career.
Bill: Absolutely, and because of this, I think the best way to describe George as successful is on a more micro level, at least for right now. In whatever way we want to quantify this, he has to be the second-best second option on his team in the NBA. He’ll never be [insert the top-5 player who is the second option on the Warriors on a given night here], but is it unreasonable to expect that he’s better than, like, Chris Paul, or Jayson Tatum, or Ben Simmons, or C.J. McCollum? I think that’s totally fair, and as long as Oklahoma City is Westbrook’s team (and it will be for as long as he’s there), George will be the clear-cut second option. Which is fine! Just be the best second option outside of Oakland. If you want to say he’s a 1A instead of a No. 2, that is also perfectly acceptable.
What also further complicates things in my mind is that George is an outstanding basketball player — legitimately one of the 3-5 best two-way players on earth — and yet he’s just so … anonymous? That might not be the right word, but no superstar is as good as knowing what they’re good at (and he’s good at a ton of stuff!) and never operating outside of those limitations. I don’t want to jack this point from you, because it’s something you have mentioned and articulated better than I did as we were preparing this, so you go ahead.
Chris: I’ll take that mic and steal the show! So what’s always fascinated me about George is that as great as he is I can’t really point to a defining moment for him. He doesn’t have that game where he took over at the end and scored 20 points in the fourth quarter to lead the Pacers/Thunder to a victory. He isn’t known for making the monumental game-changing play that swings everything in his favor. Yeah, he had the dunk on LeBron James in the playoffs where James gave him some props afterward, but that was just a highlight it didn’t change the course of the game or series. I guess none of this really matters because as long as George finds success, how he does it shouldn’t be important, but it just creates this weird situation where we have a great incredible player without a defining moment.
Yet, at the same time, that is kind of what makes George great. He doesn’t need to take over a game to win. He just does what he has to do, plays within himself, and he dominates in his own way. If Westbrook is a boxer that wins with knockouts, then George is one that wins by unanimous decision. To continue with our Warriors comparison, it’s very similar to the very different game styles of Curry and Durant in Golden State. Curry can explode for 30 points in a quarter and the game is just over. It’s done. There’s no point to playing anymore. Durant will consistently score 12 points each quarter, finish a game with 40-plus points, and it’s just a constant source that can’t be stopped. Both styles are effective. One is just far more noticeable.
Bill: And ultimately, I think that’s what makes George so much fun and is the best way to determine how he’ll find success. Basketball is all about carving out roles and filling them to the best of your ability unless you’re a freak like Giannis Antetokounmpo or Anthony Davis and can do essentially anything. For George, it’s about doing everything he has to do for the Thunder. He’s the only guy who can fill this role, and as long as he can do it to the best of his ability — no matter how flashy or anonymous he ends up being — he’ll be successful.
