Chris Paul
LAC · 2025-26Bench creatorMixed coverageWhat does Chris Paul actually supply on the floor?
Chris Paul's strongest evidenced functions are passing, creation, event creation; the weakest available areas are interior finishing, rim pressure, rim protection. The profile is tied to LAC for 2025-26.
Function profile
2025-26 — eleven separate readings on a league scale. They are not additive.* limited evidence for that function. A dash means the evidence was insufficient — not a zero. Use the separate function strengths to evaluate role and roster fit; do not treat them as one player-value score. POA or switch conclusions require lineup, matchup, and assignment evidence beyond this profile.
Season by season
Every governed season profile on record.| Season | Team | Role | Evidence | Creation | Rim pressure | Shooting | Passing | Screening | Interior finish | Point of attack | Switch coverage | Rim protection | Event creation | Rebounding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | LAC | Bench creator | Mixed coverage | 66 | 39 | 49 | 69 | — | 33 | — | — | 39 | 56 | 53 |
| 2024-25 | SAS | — | High evidence | 70 | 38 | 66 | 76 | — | 34 | 56 | 54 | 32 | 65 | 48 |
| 2023-24 | GSW | — | High evidence | 80 | 43 | 58 | 85 | — | 35 | 44 | 45 | 34 | 61 | 33 |
| 2022-23 | PHX | — | High evidence | 80 | 35 | 64 | 85 | — | 30 | 59 | 63 | 37 | 73 | 56 |
| 2021-22 | PHX | — | High evidence | 87 | 49 | 44 | 90 | — | 37 | 55 | 57 | 39 | 72 | 35 |
| 2020-21 | — | — | High evidence | 88 | 47 | 68 | 88 | — | 36 | — | — | 28 | 69 | 49 |
| 2019-20 | OKC | — | High evidence | 80 | 48 | 61 | 81 | — | 34 | — | — | 26 | 68 | 40 |
| 2018-19 | HOU | — | High evidence | 90 | 40 | 61 | 89 | — | 36 | — | — | 33 | 76 | 34 |
| 2017-18 | HOU | — | High evidence | 88 | 46 | 69 | 89 | — | 39 | — | — | 38 | 71 | 37 |
| 2016-17 | LAC | — | High evidence | 86 | 47 | 77 | 88 | — | 41 | — | — | 28 | 72 | 38 |
| 2015-16 | LAC | — | Limited evidence | 93 | 63 | 65 | 93 | — | — | — | — | 31 | 74 | — |
| 2014-15 | LAC | — | Limited evidence | 94 | 62 | 76 | 94 | — | — | — | — | 33 | 73 | — |
| 2013-14 | LAC | — | Limited evidence | 93 | 69 | 63 | 92 | — | — | — | — | 27 | 72 | — |
What teams depended on him for
Seasons where a team's situation report named him a dependency case.LAC did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Chris Paul.
Replacement evidence
Brook Lopez · Kawhi Leonard · Kris Dunn · Derrick Jones Jr. · Darius Garland
shrunk net 6.1280 over 204 possessions
on floor 389 possessions · off floor 6706 possessions
SAS did not have a sufficiently supported observed replacement lineup for Chris Paul. The database keeps the functional-loss evidence but does not invent a replacement plan.
Replacement evidence
No replacement lineup is supported by the available evidence.
on floor 4159 possessions · off floor 2998 possessions
GSW had a supported lineup path without Chris Paul: [Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Andrew Wiggins, Jonathan Kuminga] at 7.5 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 318 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
Stephen Curry · Klay Thompson · Draymond Green · Andrew Wiggins · Jonathan Kuminga
shrunk net 7.4550 over 318 possessions
on floor 2764 possessions · off floor 4547 possessions
PHX did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Chris Paul.
Replacement evidence
Devin Booker · Cameron Payne · Torrey Craig · Mikal Bridges · Deandre Ayton
shrunk net 0.1330 over 457 possessions
on floor 3801 possessions · off floor 4282 possessions
PHX was highly dependent on Chris Paul. Removing him cost about 33.0% of passing production, and lineups with him performed 5.7 points per 100 possessions better than lineups without him. The best supported replacement group was [Jae Crowder, Devin Booker, Cameron Payne, Mikal Bridges, Deandre Ayton] over 280 possessions.
Replacement evidence
Jae Crowder · Devin Booker · Cameron Payne · Mikal Bridges · Deandre Ayton
shrunk net 5.2770 over 280 possessions
on floor 4640 possessions · off floor 3617 possessions
PHX did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Chris Paul.
Replacement evidence
Jae Crowder · Devin Booker · Cameron Payne · Mikal Bridges · Deandre Ayton
shrunk net 6.7800 over 404 possessions
on floor 5200 possessions · off floor 2914 possessions
OKC did not have a sufficiently supported observed replacement lineup for Chris Paul. The database keeps the functional-loss evidence but does not invent a replacement plan.
Replacement evidence
No replacement lineup is supported by the available evidence.
on floor 4403 possessions · off floor 2374 possessions
HOU lineups performed 3.0 points per 100 possessions better with Chris Paul than without him. The best supported alternative was [P.J. Tucker, Eric Gordon, James Harden, Clint Capela, Danuel House Jr.] over 283 possessions.
Replacement evidence
P.J. Tucker · Eric Gordon · James Harden · Clint Capela · Danuel House Jr.
shrunk net 4.4520 over 283 possessions
on floor 4160 possessions · off floor 3989 possessions
HOU was highly dependent on Chris Paul. Removing him cost about 39.1% of passing production, and lineups with him performed 8.1 points per 100 possessions better than lineups without him. The best supported replacement group was [Trevor Ariza, Eric Gordon, Ryan Anderson, James Harden, Clint Capela] over 412 possessions.
Replacement evidence
Trevor Ariza · Eric Gordon · Ryan Anderson · James Harden · Clint Capela
shrunk net 10.0990 over 412 possessions
on floor 4348 possessions · off floor 4335 possessions
LAC was highly dependent on Chris Paul. Removing him cost about 36.6% of passing production, and lineups with him performed 13.7 points per 100 possessions better than lineups without him. The best supported replacement group was [Paul Pierce, Jamal Crawford, Raymond Felton, Marreese Speights, Austin Rivers] over 196 possessions.
Replacement evidence
Paul Pierce · Jamal Crawford · Raymond Felton · Marreese Speights · Austin Rivers
shrunk net 2.9410 over 196 possessions
on floor 3811 possessions · off floor 3756 possessions
LAC did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Chris Paul.
Replacement evidence
Jamal Crawford · Wesley Johnson · Cole Aldrich · Austin Rivers · Pablo Prigioni
shrunk net -6.9130 over 335 possessions
on floor 4494 possessions · off floor 2999 possessions
LAC did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Chris Paul.
Replacement evidence
No replacement lineup is supported by the available evidence.
on floor 5873 possessions · off floor 2275 possessions
LAC did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Chris Paul.
Replacement evidence
Jamal Crawford · Jared Dudley · DeAndre Jordan · Blake Griffin · Darren Collison
shrunk net 3.7420 over 219 possessions
on floor 4763 possessions · off floor 3329 possessions
Known contract calendar
Governed contract events naming this player — dates carry their honest quality.Chris Paul has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2025 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. The player is inside the two-season extension-review horizon, but exact eligibility and value are not certified.
Chris Paul has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2025 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. The player is inside the two-season extension-review horizon, but exact eligibility and value are not certified.
Chris Paul has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2022 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. The player is inside the two-season extension-review horizon, but exact eligibility and value are not certified.
Chris Paul has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2022 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. No extension-review trigger is applied yet.
Function scores, roles, dependence records and contract events are separate evidence. No combined player value, trade value or ranking is computed from them, and none of them is a causal impact claim.