It's time to say it: cp3 no longer matters

[Lost92Bricks]

Paul can put up 30/8/12 and they still lose.

This happened in game 6 against the Rockets. 31/7/11 on 10-19 shooting...still lost. He has a bunch of wasted performances like that.

[TheHartBreakKid]

I think the OP is kinda harsh, but I see the general point. CP3 is still elite, but he is declining, and the Clippers would be smart to decide to rebuild sooner than later. However, "no longer matters", is a little extreme. CP3 can be a huge contributor to a championship team, ala Tony Parker on the Spurs. Which brings me to my next point, which is that if CP3 wants a title and wants to get it in a role bigger than the Jkidd on dallas end of career role, his best chance imo, is to sign with the Spurs. Pop will make sure to keep him healthy and fresh for the playoffs, and Kawhi/Cp3/Aldridge are good fits together. Cp3 would thrive in the Tony Parker role at this stage of his career, imo.





But regarding what the OP said, I'm also a big believer that CP3's lack of scoring aggression has historically hurt his team at times. I wouldn't go as far as to call him selfish, but I do agree that he could have had more of an impact if he focused on scoring a little more. Of course, that's more directed at the CP3 of the past, who was athletically superior and better fit to score. Now, I feel like he is playing the right way with his current abilities.....I just don't think he has the right role, or is on the right team, if the goal is to win a championship.

[Hello Brooklyn]

Clippers should be happy they have CP3. He's the best thing that ever happened to them in their entire franchise history. Without him they'd be an annual lottery team just like before for the last decades.

Clippers fans are expectation too high, should be happy with you're competitive team while you have it, because you never know when it'll be all done. And once its over you'll be sad/mad/frustrated wishing you just enjoyed the ride while it lasted. This is not some all time great franchise that has a championship standard like the Lakers or Celtics. This is the Clippers.

The worst sports franchise in North American history before CP3 came and changed everything. Could they have done better at times , yeah but overall CP3 has been a HUGE success and blessing for this pitiful team. nfs. This is the truth especially when you look at the Clippers history since even the 70s, the ownership, fan interest, reputation etc. etc. I think people are forgetting how bad the Clippers reputation was before CP3. You'd talk to even non basketball fans or non sports fans from LA and it was an absolute given that the Clippers were a walking meme. A complete Joke. This is no exaggeration either. Everyone and their grandmothers knew this.

Sometimes fans and people need to just enjoy the ride while it lasts instead of always looking for bigger better greater things. It's like a old relationship. Things are solid, but people what that new exciting fresh feeling back. They look around and see the shiny new toys around the league like the Nikola Jokics, The Porzingis, The Greek Freaks, the Hardens and Westbrooks putting up Triple double numbers etc. Yet they forget the strong foundation that was built(foundation especially in comparison to how things were before) although things feel a little stale. They want the fresh feeling back. That Lob City excitement. The feeling they had when the team was first put together and their fortunes changed. When they were the brand new thing in town. CP3 is not perfect, but he's mighty hard to replace.

The real Clippers fans, the ones that were down since during their dark ages should be very happy and show CP3 extreme gratitude. He should be treated like Kobe Bryant by them.(Just the Clippers fans, not the rest of LA)

I'm not sure I buy this.

First of all, Blake Griffin was the one who changed the Clippers. The only reason CP3 even considered coming to the Clippers was because of how great Blake was playing.

Also, it's frustrating to have one of the best rosters in the league and to get no results. The Clippers seem to have enough talent to win a championship but can never get it done. Their choke jobs against OKC and Houston being the prime examples. And a lot of that is on Paul.

And also, Elton Brand took the Clippers just as far as Paul did. Even got them to a game 7 vs a better Suns team in the 2nd round. So it's not like hes the first one to turn them around.

[Lost92Bricks]

I'm not sure I buy this.

First of all, Blake Griffin was the one who changed the Clippers. The only reason CP3 even considered coming to the Clippers was because of how great Blake was playing.

Also, it's frustrating to have one of the best rosters in the league and to get no results. The Clippers seem to have enough talent to win a championship but can never get it done. Their choke jobs against OKC and Houston being the prime examples. And a lot of that is on Paul.

And also, Elton Brand took the Clippers just as far as Paul did. Even got them to a game 7 vs a better Suns team in the 2nd round. So it's not like hes the first one to turn them around.

Yeah but they didn't become a playoff team and relevant franchise until they got CP. Clippers missed the playoffs for 5 straight years and won 35% of their games before he got there. They trade for him and they instantly become one of the best teams in the west and an annual playoff team.

He has missed over 60 games as a Clipper and the Clippers are sub .500 in those games. They get over 14 points better when he''s on the floor. No other player has made a bigger difference.

It's not all him but it's mostly him.

[MEGAQUIB]

He never mattered. He always blew the game when it was on the line. Great regular season player but just didn't have the mental ability to win big games.

[koogiking]

I'm not sure I buy this.

First of all, Blake Griffin was the one who changed the Clippers. The only reason CP3 even considered coming to the Clippers was because of how great Blake was playing.

Also, it's frustrating to have one of the best rosters in the league and to get no results. The Clippers seem to have enough talent to win a championship but can never get it done. Their choke jobs against OKC and Houston being the prime examples. And a lot of that is on Paul.

And also, Elton Brand took the Clippers just as far as Paul did. Even got them to a game 7 vs a better Suns team in the 2nd round. So it's not like hes the first one to turn them around.

Thats true about Elton Brand, but he did it for just one season. Chris Paul has given them sustained success since 2012 for the first time in their entire franchise history. That means something. The team is no longer joke tier. If you mention this in 2010 that the Clippers would have consecutive 50+ Win seasons and be in the mix year in year out as contenders, all starting as soon as 2012 people would think you're ludicrous.

All that means something.

Sometimes you have to enjoy "The Process".

[Chinook]

All of those players went to multiple conference finals.

As in win the chip...obviously.

But Chinook isn't saying he expected Paul to "win the chip." He's saying he expected Paul to at least get past the second round of the playoffs a couple times by now. And he's had his chances. He's just choked all of them away.

Ten different franchises have played in the Western Conference Finals during Paul's NBA tenure. The only teams that haven't are Portland, Sacramento, Minnesota, LAC and New Orleans. (Of course, if you back it up six more years, you get SAC, POR and MIN, but that's not really the point.) As consistently dominant as SA and LAL were in the early 00s, there's been a good amount of flux since both of their dynasties faded. The idea that they kept getting blocked out by good teams and were just unlucky doesn't make sense really.

Relatively speaking, it's not THAT hard to back into a conference Finals. Even with Lebron dominating the East for years now, nine teams have represented the East in the conference Finals in that span. (And if you back up those same six years, you get an additional three teams.) I don't buy the excuses. When you're a HoFer, you've just gotta make it there.

(So to keep track, since 2000, the only teams that haven't made the conference Finals are NO, LAC, WSH, NY and CHR, who've only been in the league since 2004.)

[Lost92Bricks]

Ten different franchises have played in the Western Conference Finals during Paul's NBA tenure. The only teams that haven't are Portland, Sacramento, Minnesota, LAC and New Orleans. (Of course, if you back it up six more years, you get SAC, POR and MIN, but that's not really the point.) As consistently dominant as SA and LAL were in the early 00s, there's been a good amount of flux since both of their dynasties faded. The idea that they kept getting blocked out by good teams and were just unlucky doesn't make sense really.

Relatively speaking, it's not THAT hard to back into a conference Finals. Even with Lebron dominating the East for years now, nine teams have represented the East in the conference Finals in that span. (And if you back up those same six years, you get an additional three teams.) I don't buy the excuses. When you're a HoFer, you've just gotta make it there.

(So to keep track, since 2000, the only teams that haven't made the conference Finals are NO, LAC, WSH, NY and CHR, who've only been in the league since 2004.)

This doesn't prove much other than the Clippers and Pelicans are two of the worst franchises in the history of the league. But we already knew that.

What years does Chris Paul's team not getting to the conference finals prove he's overrated?

[og15]

Stopped reading this thread the second somebody mentioned Bill Simmons like he is some Clippers "expert." The guy is a hack.

CP3 is the best thing about the Clippers and has been since the day David Stern traded him here. No, he is not a scoring machine but not a whole lot of 6'0 players are. He is still one of the best pure PGs the game has ever seen and still plays at an extraordinary level at age 31.

I mentioned him bc he's a season ticket holder and goes to alot of games, and has gone to nba games his whole life. His views aside, it's clear watching this team something isn't right there. Being there live all the time with good seats makes it easier, but it's visible even on TV. When a guy on your team is constantly showing you up, and is supposed to be leading you to a title or at least a deep playoff run and can't, players probably start to get frustrated. With all the talent they supposedly have, you watch the clips and you can tell something is up there.

Bill Simmons has history with the Clippers, he's never been a fan of the team, and he's not objective about them, especially since the whole Doc situation since he's a Celtics fan. Simmons is no authority or special insight on anything about the Clippers.

First of all, Blake Griffin was the one who changed the Clippers. The only reason CP3 even considered coming to the Clippers was because of how great Blake was playing.

Also, it's frustrating to have one of the best rosters in the league and to get no results. The Clippers seem to have enough talent to win a championship but can never get it done. Their choke jobs against OKC and Houston being the prime examples. And a lot of that is on Paul.

And also, Elton Brand took the Clippers just as far as Paul did. Even got them to a game 7 vs a better Suns team in the 2nd round. So it's not like hes the first one to turn them around.

Yup, Blake started it by being drafted there and wanting to help turn things around for the team, and along with DJ being able to attract a player like Paul to want to go there. OKC series had the choke moment in game 5, but Clippers weren't guaranteed to win either of the last two games if they won game 5. Durant and Westbrook have done things like win 3 games in a row vs a 67 win SA team last season. Also OKC also essentially choked in game 4 themselves too, so I suppose it balanced out.

Having one of the best teams is nice, but if you're not the best or in the top 2-3, then it isn't as great as it seems. Clippers have been the 5th, 4th, 3rd, 3rd and 4th seed in the West with Paul. The two years at 3rd were their best chance, but 3rd still meant no HCA in round 2 vs the 2nd seed. Still, shouldn't have lost to Houston, but Paul wasn't the reason for the Clippers awful defense in games 5-7 and Paul didn't make the Clippers players shoot worse on similar shots to the Rockets players:

Open and Wide Open Shots
For the series as a whole, the Clippers as a team shot 28.7% 3PT on "open" 3PT shots. In contrast, Houston shot 38.6% 3PT. Houston had 10.0 per game, Clippers had 12.4 per game.

"Wide Open", Houston had 12.8 3PT/G (37.8%), Clippers had 10.6 3PT/G (41.9%). So it's not like one team was creating open looks while the other wasn't. Clippers made their wide open shots but didn't make their open ones even though more were created for them.

Bring it down to just the last 3 games:
Houston open 3PT (6.0 3PT / 38.9% 3PT)
Houston wide open 3PT (15.3 3PT / 47.8% 3PT)
Clippers open 3PT (13.3 3PT / 25.0% 3PT)
Clippers wide open 3PT (12.0 3PT / 25.0% 3PT)

So 25.3 open/wide open 3PT shots/game over the last 3 games the Clippers connected on 25%. At 25% 3PT you're not even gaining any value from shooting 3PT shots. That's the same as shooting 37.5% 2PT in terms of eFG%. Might as well have chucked up long mid-range shots in that situation (Clipper shot 43.4% FG there during the season). Houston actually had fewer with 20.3 open/wide open 3PT shots, but they averaged 29 ppg on open/wide open 3PT shots while shooting 5 fewer a game, while the Clippers averaged 19 ppg on those same shots.

Paul and Blake had their weak moments, but they produced enough to win if the rest of the team hit their open shots better, and if they defended better as a team. Houston won game 6 while Harden was -12 and on the bench when they were making their winning run, but Harden is credited even for that series turning impact despite not doing anything. Similarly so would Blake and Paul except the Clippers have no had teams that produce like that outside of their stars in the post-season.

[Bertrob]

He's still the 2nd best PG in the league behind Curry, hes very relevant although his team is not

[Chinook]

This doesn't prove much other than the Clippers and Pelicans are two of the worst franchises in the history of the league. But we already knew that.

Um, no. It shows exactly how much natural rotation there is in conference finals appearances. Only 16 percent of the league hasn't made it to the third round since 2000. It doesn't make sense to believe that it's just chance that CP3 has never been there. Even teams that aren't all that good find a way to make it eventually.

What years does Chris Paul's team not getting to the conference finals prove he's overrated?

I don't care about "proof", especially of a negative (that Paul is NOT good). I can only offer evidence that suggests his style of control isn't necessary or sufficient for team success. If Paul can control a team with the talent that LAC has but not be able to beat teams like McHale Houston, it suggests that his way of doing things is really that good. If Paul does get there, it may well be by taking a different role, controlling less and scoring more. It would be nice for him to try.

If you want to argue that Paul can do what he wants to do more easily that almost every player, that he can have a bigger statistical impact that most players, that's fine. I don't mind if you want to argue that what being the best player or "mattering" is. I don't believe what he does is particularly conducive to team success. I'd much rather have a role-player at PG who can play his role well than a field general.

[madmaxmedia]

He's still the 2nd best PG in the league behind Curry, hes very relevant although his team is not

I think given the talent on the team the last 3-4 years, if he was the 2nd best PG in the league then the Clippers should be better, or should have gotten past the 2nd round at least once. It's not a championship team (certainly not the last couple of years), but it's a team that should have survived the 2nd round once.

That's the conundrum for me with Paul. That and the fact that what I see doesn't quite match what the stats say, as well as the obvious talents he does have. The facts also say the Clipper offense is really good, but I see an offense that in the half-court, where playoff games are often won and lost, is not dynamic at all, gets stagnant, and becomes very predictable.

Chris Paul is s a great player no doubt, but IMO he doesn't elevate his team around him. If his teammates all love him then I accept that he's a great teammate and leader. But often it seems like he doesn't lead his team as much as scold it.

[bondom34]

So basically, you're perfectly fine with not having a massive upgrade at PG so you can keep a few role players. Tony Parker was never remotely as good as CP. Sorry, he'd be a better fit and better player.

Yeah, you clearly have a different idea of the Spurs than I do. Paul hasn't won anything because his style of play is neither necessary nor sufficient for winning. You simply can't be as "good" as he is and as able to put your fingerprints on every game the way he does and not make it past the WCSF. You just can't. And it's not even like he doesn't have help.

CP hasn't won because by and large he hasn't been on teams with casts where he was ever favored.

The Spurs are favored a lot more than him. They're a much better cast than the Clippers, and a better run franchise. He's run into better teams. I honestly am having a hard time buying someone wouldn't give up a few role players for him but then again I'm always amazed when I come here.

[Shuttlesworth99]

It's hard to come across as elite when the team is so flawed and all the money is tied up in those problems.

[madmaxmedia]

So many good observations here.

I wish we had held onto Neil Olshey. I know the Trail Blazers are struggling right now, but we actually had good drafts with him. When this current squad started, we were beating GSW in the playoffs. Many teams have changed, the game has changed. The Clippers haven't.

I'm not going to blame EVERYTHING on Doc Rivers, as a 50+ win treadmill is still better than many teams. But a coach/GM is not the one to architect a big evolution or overhaul of a 1st/2nd round team like the Clippers. He's too close to the floor, and is always thinking of what 1 or 2 little tweaks or improvements (often by way of trading 1st round picks) might put the team 'over the top'.

On Thursday, the Clippers rebooted Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead, getting absolutely smashed by the Nuggets, 129–114. And it didn’t feel that close. The Clippers were without DeAndre Jordan and Blake Griffin, both of whom were rested for the second leg of a back-to-back, and yes [makes a gesture toward the Rockies] … the air up here. But still. That’s twice in two nights that a younger, stronger, faster, more positionally inventive team has run Los Angeles out of a gym (the Bucks did it on Wednesday). After the game, Clippers guard J.J. Redick took stock:

"I don’t know what to expect from this team anymore … It’s just — we’re in a bad place right now. We’re losing games. We’ve been [a mess] since the All-Star break. … I expect that we’re going to play horrible defense. I expect that. … That seems pretty consistent with where we’re at right now and other than that I have no other predictions. … The whole season has been weird. The start, even the [seven-game] winning streak in January, seems like three seasons ago."

I’ll do J.J. one better: It feels like the Clippers, these Clippers, the Doc-Chris-Blake-DJ Clippers, started a lifetime ago. And this is the twilight.
Doc Rivers showed up in Los Angeles almost four years ago, and steered the franchise through the turbulent end to the Donald Sterling era. He was the major beneficiary of Steve Ballmer’s purchase of the team, becoming the club’s president of basketball operations, giving him the power to shape the roster as he saw fit. He inherited two top-10 NBA talents in Blake Griffin and Chris Paul, and helped sculpt DeAndre Jordan into an All-Star center, albeit one who can barely be played in crunch time because of his acute free throw allergy.

Steve Ballmer Has a Plan to Let You Watch the NBA from Chris Paul’s Perspective

The Clippers owner has thoughts on the NBA’s future, from ticketing to arenas to the at-home experience.

Under Doc, the Clippers constructed a starting five that checked almost every archetypal box — the floor general point guard, the sweet-shooting shooting guard, the bulldozer power forward, and the paint-patrolling 5. They’ve never been able to fill the 3 spot, though they’ve tried everyone from Matt Barnes to Paul Pierce to Luc Mbah a Moute to Batman. They have the coach’s son and one of the great streak shooters in league history coming off the bench. Every year they assemble a collection of vets for depth, and every year they come up short. Sometimes it’s injuries, sometimes they choke, sometimes it’s both.

And while Doc has been tinkering, adding to his core, or famously working to keep it together, the NBA has changed. It is a land of unicorns, point centers, and Greek Freaks. Watching the Clippers play the Nuggets last night was like watching a 19th-century pugilist fight Conor McGregor. Denver was painting with a different palette, and they had a new kind of artist.

The Clippers were the Clippers. Just older. This is a team that can consistently win 55 games a year, and their starting five, when healthy, is one of the best offensive units of the century. And yet L.A. is the most derided of the NBA’s upper tier, because they’ve never been able to translate their talent into true postseason success. And it doesn’t look like that’s going to change this year.

The Clippers are 4–6 in their last 10, and losers of three in a row. After the Bucks loss, Rivers said:
I don’t think we are struggling. I think we’re playing OK. We’re not playing great. I just think there are times, and I’m just being honest, we’re looked at in a different lens. … I don’t think Golden State is worried about struggling right now. It’s part of the season. Cleveland has lost four out of five, but for whatever reason, if we don’t play great, it’s a different lens. I don’t get that. … Maybe because they won a title they get the benefit of the doubt. I thought that early in the year. We had all these injuries, no one mentions it. And Golden State has a couple and it’s the end of the world for them.

Doc is treating you like you’re a ref here. Don’t get worked. Yes, the reason the Clippers are being harshly judged is because they haven’t won a title. That is exactly why. It’s unclear what, exactly, Rivers wants: to be judged against the league’s elite, or against an upper middle class that frankly doesn’t exist anymore? Does he think he’s coaching the Pacers? Are the Clippers not supposed to be contenders?

NBA teams are always rising and falling. The Jazz, Bucks, and Rockets can weather ups and downs because they are fresh and new — experiments in tactics and personnel. The Spurs have shown an ability to unearth new talent, develop from within, and attract free agents. They are in an almost constant state of controlled flux.

The Clippers have a self-belief that borders on the absurd. They think that if they just keep plugging away, with the same guys, playing the same style, even against teams like Houston, Golden State, and San Antonio that are trying to relentlessly improve and reinvent themselves, something will break right for them.

And this is why they don’t get the benefit of the doubt. They’ve given us no reason to do so. While they were waiting their turn, the league moved on.

[Chinook]

CP hasn't won because by and large he hasn't been on teams with casts where he was ever favored.

And that's in large part because he himself isn't that superlative. His teams have almost always had the talent.

The Spurs are favored a lot more than him. They're a much better cast than the Clippers, and a better run franchise.

The Spurs are definitely better coached in terms of culture and system. I'd give Doc a H2H advantage, though. But considering how much crap posters on the T&T were talking about the Spurs' supporting cast, I find it hard to believe that they are better than the Clippers' cast with guys like Griffin, Jordan and Redick.

He's run into better teams.

Him being on a team should make it "the better team". But it doesn't. It doesn't even when he has two All-Stars in his front court. Better teams might be better because they aren't PG-dominated or at least had score-first PGs who leveraged their scoring to get points rather than probing.

I honestly am having a hard time buying someone wouldn't give up a few role players for him but then again I'm always amazed when I come here.

Well, I'm glad RealGM is an amazing experience for you. But the Spurs need scoring from their front court, not passing. The system will get the ball moving, and I'd rather let it dictate passes than Paul.

[bondom34]

And that's in large part because he himself isn't that superlative. His teams have almost always had the talent.

Actually they haven't. LA is 3-4 men deep. That's not a good roster. And his peak was better by far than anyone on the Spurs today, and probably Timmy too.

The Spurs are definitely better coached in terms of culture and system. I'd give Doc a H2H advantage, though. But considering how much crap posters on the T&T were talking about the Spurs' supporting cast, I find it hard to believe that they are better than the Clippers' cast with guys like Griffin, Jordan and Redick.

And not a single good player after those 4 while the Spurs run about 10 deep.

Him being on a team should make it "the better team". But it doesn't. It doesn't even when he has two All-Stars in his front court. Better teams might be better because they aren't PG-dominated or at least had score-first PGs who leveraged their scoring to get points rather than probing. ]

Actually it does. Hence why they're so dominant when he's on the court. They suck when he sits down, something that never happens to the Spurs. It's not because of his style, it's because his backup is his coach's son and Ray Felton.

Well, I'm glad RealGM is an amazing experience for you. But the Spurs need scoring from their front court, not passing. The system will get the ball moving, and I'd rather let it dictate passes than Paul.

Wait you want scoring and passing and start Tony Parker?
Whoa.

[hardenASG13]

And that's in large part because he himself isn't that superlative. His teams have almost always had the talent.

Actually they haven't. LA is 3-4 men deep. That's not a good roster. And his peak was better by far than anyone on the Spurs today, and probably Timmy too.

The Spurs are definitely better coached in terms of culture and system. I'd give Doc a H2H advantage, though. But considering how much crap posters on the T&T were talking about the Spurs' supporting cast, I find it hard to believe that they are better than the Clippers' cast with guys like Griffin, Jordan and Redick.

And not a single good player after those 4 while the Spurs run about 10 deep.

Him being on a team should make it "the better team". But it doesn't. It doesn't even when he has two All-Stars in his front court. Better teams might be better because they aren't PG-dominated or at least had score-first PGs who leveraged their scoring to get points rather than probing. ]

Actually it does. Hence why they're so dominant when he's on the court. They suck when he sits down, something that never happens to the Spurs. It's not because of his style, it's because his backup is his coach's son and Ray Felton.

Well, I'm glad RealGM is an amazing experience for you. But the Spurs need scoring from their front court, not passing. The system will get the ball moving, and I'd rather let it dictate passes than Paul.

Wait you want scoring and passing and start Tony Parker?
Whoa.

No, just no

[garrick]

The Clips have had a few things go against them the major one is injuries as Blake and CP3 have been injured often.

Doc is just not a good coach and not a good GM either as the Clips bench is pretty horrible.

DeAndre is good at what he does but he's an offensive liability and with them signing him for the max was overpaying imo, that money could have gone into a deeper bench or a more capable SF.

[bondom34]

And that's in large part because he himself isn't that superlative. His teams have almost always had the talent.

Actually they haven't. LA is 3-4 men deep. That's not a good roster. And his peak was better by far than anyone on the Spurs today, and probably Timmy too.

The Spurs are definitely better coached in terms of culture and system. I'd give Doc a H2H advantage, though. But considering how much crap posters on the T&T were talking about the Spurs' supporting cast, I find it hard to believe that they are better than the Clippers' cast with guys like Griffin, Jordan and Redick.

And not a single good player after those 4 while the Spurs run about 10 deep.

Him being on a team should make it "the better team". But it doesn't. It doesn't even when he has two All-Stars in his front court. Better teams might be better because they aren't PG-dominated or at least had score-first PGs who leveraged their scoring to get points rather than probing. ]

Actually it does. Hence why they're so dominant when he's on the court. They suck when he sits down, something that never happens to the Spurs. It's not because of his style, it's because his backup is his coach's son and Ray Felton.

Well, I'm glad RealGM is an amazing experience for you. But the Spurs need scoring from their front court, not passing. The system will get the ball moving, and I'd rather let it dictate passes than Paul.

Wait you want scoring and passing and start Tony Parker?
Whoa.

No, just no

Good analysis, A+. Good thread, would read again. Hot takez.