Will this be Cp3's last season as the best pg?

[oaktownwarriors87]

A woman's ability to carry a child peaks at 20.
A woman's prime to have a child is 16 to 26.
A woman's window to have a child is 13 to 40.

Peak and prime are very different. In statistics, a peak is actually just a single data point. A prime isn't a set of data points but rather a time period that covers all data points that satisfy an accepted decline rate, say 70% of peak for example.

People might have a different opinion of what prime is. Is it 80% of peak or is it 70% of peak? Regardless, prime is significantly wider than peak. A player producing at 80% of his peak may still be in his prime.

Chris Paul's pregnant?

[Boarder Patrol]

I think so, to be honest. Paul's game has never relied totally on athleticism but guys who have their meniscus removed (i.e Wade) typically have an expiration date where a noticeable decline comes.

[cpower]

Westbrook isn't even a first option. Is this a joke thread?

[Purch]

I'd take the Westbrook I saw in the playoffs last year, over Chris Paul any day of the week. In fact I think if you switch Westbrook and Paul the result of th Okc/Lac clippers series is swapped.

…Why? Westbrook still doesn't know how to close out games, and that's kinda important in playoff basketball. His decision making just isn't there, and I do wonder if that's partially on brooks for seemingly having no game plan in the final minutes. I don't care that OKC beat LAC in the playoffs. Basketball is a team game and paul had an excellent series.

I find it Intresting that you use that you would use "closing out" as part of your argument, when the real reason the clippers lost to the thunder was because of Paul's silly turnovers in game 5, that cost them the series; and his inability to control the game in the 4th quarter.

Where is this notion of Paul being a good closer In the playoffs even coming from. I've seen the same thing from Paul every year in the playoffs. Being passive with the ball, letting his team fall behind, start looking for his shot way too late, and proceed to let the game slip away, team gets eliminated before the conference finals..rinse and repeat every year.

Westbrook on the other hand, I've seen him single handedly put a team in foul trouble and make their defense look pathetic at times. People love Paul because he's efficent, but unlike Lebron that efficency doesn't translate to actually dominating and taking control of the game.

If I'm looking to win, I'm taking Westbrook over Paul any day of the week. Westbrook has his highs and lows, but IMO his highs are significantly more impactful on a game than Paul's are.

[bondom34]

I'd take the Westbrook I saw in the playoffs last year, over Chris Paul any day of the week. In fact I think if you switch Westbrook and Paul the result of th Okc/Lac clippers series is swapped.

…Why? Westbrook still doesn't know how to close out games, and that's kinda important in playoff basketball. His decision making just isn't there, and I do wonder if that's partially on brooks for seemingly having no game plan in the final minutes. I don't care that OKC beat LAC in the playoffs. Basketball is a team game and paul had an excellent series.

I find it Intresting that you use that you would use "closing out" as part of your argument, when the real reason the clippers lost to the thunder was because of Paul's silly turnovers in game 5, that cost them the series; and his inability to control the game in the 4th quarter.

Where is this notion of Paul being a good closer In the playoffs even coming from. I've seen the same thing from Paul every year in the playoffs. Being passive with the ball, letting his team fall behind, start looking for his shot way too late, and proceed to let the game slip away, team gets eliminated before the conference finals..rinse and repeat every year.

Westbrook on the other hand, I've seen him single handedly put a team in foul trouble and make their defense look pathetic at times. People love Paul because he's efficent, but unlike Lebron that efficency doesn't translate to actually dominating and taking control of the game.

If I'm looking to win, I'm taking Westbrook over Paul any day of the week. Westbrook has his highs and lows, but IMO his highs are significantly more impactful on a game than Paul's are.

I still think CP is the (slightly) better PG, but agree with most of this. I don't know how you use the playoffs last year to say Paul can close and Russ can't, and think Westbrook's impact goes a bit beyond numbers.

[Clyde Frazier]

I'd take the Westbrook I saw in the playoffs last year, over Chris Paul any day of the week. In fact I think if you switch Westbrook and Paul the result of th Okc/Lac clippers series is swapped.

…Why? Westbrook still doesn't know how to close out games, and that's kinda important in playoff basketball. His decision making just isn't there, and I do wonder if that's partially on brooks for seemingly having no game plan in the final minutes. I don't care that OKC beat LAC in the playoffs. Basketball is a team game and paul had an excellent series.

I find it Intresting that you use that you would use "closing out" as part of your argument, when the real reason the clippers lost to the thunder was because of Paul's silly turnovers in game 5, that cost them the series; and his inability to control the game in the 4th quarter.

Where is this notion of Paul being a good closer In the playoffs even coming from. I've seen the same thing from Paul every year in the playoffs. Being passive with the ball, letting his team fall behind, start looking for his shot way too late, and proceed to let the game slip away, team gets eliminated before the conference finals..rinse and repeat every year.

Westbrook on the other hand, I've seen him single handedly put a team in foul trouble and make their defense look pathetic at times. People love Paul because he's efficent, but unlike Lebron that efficency doesn't translate to actually dominating and taking control of the game.

If I'm looking to win, I'm taking Westbrook over Paul any day of the week. Westbrook has his highs and lows, but IMO his highs are significantly more impactful on a game than Paul's are.

The issue here is you're ignoring sample size by bringing up game 5 as if that's an ongoing theme with paul in the playoffs over the last few seasons. Griffin got hurt in the 2013 playoffs, and durant was incredible against the clippers. Earlier in his career he didn't have that much talent around him to expectedly go far in the playoffs.

Westbrook's ability to put a team on his back for stretches is no doubt incredible, and he's one of the most dynamic players in the NBA. It's very clear that he still only knows one speed, though. Have you really missed the countless times he's bricked 3s (when he isn't even a respectable 3 pt shooter) or rushed shots at the end of games instead of making the more sensible play?

Again, I don't know how much we should start looking at how brooks approaches end of game situations. It really just seems to come down to give the ball to westbrook or give the ball to durant and get out of the way. They don't even have much of a 2 man game going, and it's as if ibaka doesn't exist.

[FX20014]

Not sure if this season will be Paul's last, but he isn't getting younger. A lot of younger pg's are starting to dominate the league, so Paul needs to get a taste of a finals run or at least conference finals.

[COM_GTFO]

I find it Intresting that you use that you would use "closing out" as part of your argument, when the real reason the clippers lost to the thunder was because of Paul's silly turnovers in game 5, that cost them the series; and his inability to control the game in the 4th quarter.

Where is this notion of Paul being a good closer In the playoffs even coming from. I've seen the same thing from Paul every year in the playoffs. Being passive with the ball, letting his team fall behind, start looking for his shot way too late, and proceed to let the game slip away, team gets eliminated before the conference finals..rinse and repeat every year.

Westbrook on the other hand, I've seen him single handedly put a team in foul trouble and make their defense look pathetic at times. People love Paul because he's efficent, but unlike Lebron that efficency doesn't translate to actually dominating and taking control of the game.

If I'm looking to win, I'm taking Westbrook over Paul any day of the week. Westbrook has his highs and lows, but IMO his highs are significantly more impactful on a game than Paul's are.

That's a pretty weak argument to say that the Clippers lost because of Paul's turnovers in Game 5. The Clippers lost because they lost 4 games in that series as a team, you can't just pinpoint one player's performance during one relatively short stretch of a single game when there are so many other variables involved - e.g. Crawford shooting 7-22. Overall in the series, you can't really blame Paul for much seeing as he's the only who really showed up - 22.5/3.7/11.8/2.5 51% shooting 45% 3pt.

Also, do you have any actual evidence that suggests Westbrook is more clutch than Paul? Imo, people tend to make the mistake of thinking Westbrook is somehow more clutch because he goes for risky plays more often (e.g. pull up 3 in transition in a close game) than someone like Paul does. From what I've seen Westbrook is far too inefficient to be a better closer than Paul.

And just in general, can you explain to me how Westbrook is in any way close to Chris Paul? Because I just can't see it. Paul is better in practically every aspect of the game.

[NinjaSheppard]

I'd take the Westbrook I saw in the playoffs last year, over Chris Paul any day of the week. In fact I think if you switch Westbrook and Paul the result of th Okc/Lac clippers series is swapped.

…Why? Westbrook still doesn't know how to close out games, and that's kinda important in playoff basketball. His decision making just isn't there, and I do wonder if that's partially on brooks for seemingly having no game plan in the final minutes. I don't care that OKC beat LAC in the playoffs. Basketball is a team game and paul had an excellent series.

I find it Intresting that you use that you would use "closing out" as part of your argument, when the real reason the clippers lost to the thunder was because of Paul's silly turnovers in game 5, that cost them the series; and his inability to control the game in the 4th quarter.

Where is this notion of Paul being a good closer In the playoffs even coming from. I've seen the same thing from Paul every year in the playoffs. Being passive with the ball, letting his team fall behind, start looking for his shot way too late, and proceed to let the game slip away, team gets eliminated before the conference finals..rinse and repeat every year.

Westbrook on the other hand, I've seen him single handedly put a team in foul trouble and make their defense look pathetic at times. People love Paul because he's efficent, but unlike Lebron that efficency doesn't translate to actually dominating and taking control of the game.

If I'm looking to win, I'm taking Westbrook over Paul any day of the week. Westbrook has his highs and lows, but IMO his highs are significantly more impactful on a game than Paul's are.

https://twitter.com/tomhaberstroh/statu ... 4431440896

Tom HaberstrohVerified account ‏@tomhaberstroh

Career PER in playoff clutch situations: Chris Paul 30.9, Westbrook 11.8. That's why folks would roast Westbrook if Gm 5 tables were turned.

[GSP]

Maybe but i wouldnt be confident in saying it. I think Cp3 last season was still far better than Curry and especially Westbrook. Hes easily a top 3 player and theres a substantial gap between 4th.

[Basketballefan]

I find it Intresting that you use that you would use "closing out" as part of your argument, when the real reason the clippers lost to the thunder was because of Paul's silly turnovers in game 5, that cost them the series; and his inability to control the game in the 4th quarter.

Where is this notion of Paul being a good closer In the playoffs even coming from. I've seen the same thing from Paul every year in the playoffs. Being passive with the ball, letting his team fall behind, start looking for his shot way too late, and proceed to let the game slip away, team gets eliminated before the conference finals..rinse and repeat every year.

Westbrook on the other hand, I've seen him single handedly put a team in foul trouble and make their defense look pathetic at times. People love Paul because he's efficent, but unlike Lebron that efficency doesn't translate to actually dominating and taking control of the game.

If I'm looking to win, I'm taking Westbrook over Paul any day of the week. Westbrook has his highs and lows, but IMO his highs are significantly more impactful on a game than Paul's are.

That's a pretty weak argument to say that the Clippers lost because of Paul's turnovers in Game 5. The Clippers lost because they lost 4 games in that series as a team, you can't just pinpoint one player's performance during one relatively short stretch of a single game when there are so many other variables involved - e.g. Crawford shooting 7-22. Overall in the series, you can't really blame Paul for much seeing as he's the only who really showed up - 22.5/3.7/11.8/2.5 51% shooting 45% 3pt.

Also, do you have any actual evidence that suggests Westbrook is more clutch than Paul? Imo, people tend to make the mistake of thinking Westbrook is somehow more clutch because he goes for risky plays more often (e.g. pull up 3 in transition in a close game) than someone like Paul does. From what I've seen Westbrook is far too inefficient to be a better closer than Paul.

And just in general, can you explain to me how Westbrook is in any way close to Chris Paul? Because I just can't see it. Paul is better in practically every aspect of the game.

Not that i'm disagreeing that that Paul>Westbrook but i don't think it's fair to say Paul is better at every aspect. I think Westbrook is a better scorer and rebounder. He gets to the hole better and is more athletic. Paul is only about 5'11 so it is easier to neutralize someone of his stature than it is Westbrook because of his speed size for his position and athleticism.

[Darren_Errman]

CP3 is still #1 but I'm worried about his leg. He grabbed his leg from time to time throughout the season. Probably played through pain all year. Guy is a soldier but hobbled too often.

I say CP3 stays at #1 for 1 more season. After that he will take a backseat to Blake Griffin, remain a top-10 PG in the league for 2 more seasons, then he falls out of the top 10 within 3 years. PG is a brutal game right now. Slowed a step or two and you fall off the map (Deron).

[COM_GTFO]

Not that i'm disagreeing that that Paul>Westbrook but i don't think it's fair to say Paul is better at every aspect. I think Westbrook is a better scorer and rebounder. He gets to the hole better and is more athletic. Paul is only about 5'11 so it is easier to neutralize someone of his stature than it is Westbrook because of his speed size for his position and athleticism.

How is Westbrook a better scorer though?

Chris Paul had a higher FG% from literally every single zone this season. Proof is below:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lch01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... bru01.html

And in terms of rebounding, I'd say they're pretty similar. OKC doesn't have a 12 RPG guy like the Clippers have in Jordan, so there's not actually that much difference between Paul & Westbrook there.

The one thing Westbrook has is athleticism - but he doesn't use it that well.