og15 wrote:Losing up 2-0
What does the Paul stat actually mean? It's telling us by that Blake and Paul are injury prone, yea, we know that.
2013: Griffin injury
2016: Griffin and Paul injury, both didn't play the 2bd half of game 4 or the last 2 games
2013: The series had already gone from 2-0 to tied when Blake got hurt and Memphis had all the momentum anyway.
LOL, what did you think was going to happen? 3-0? 3-1? You think the Grizzlies luckily won 56 games? This is the team that in 2015 knocked out Portland 4-1 and were up 2-1 on eventual champs GS? Are we talking about reality or talking about going up 2-0 on a hypothetical team?
The road team winning their home games has all the momentum? Why? How does that work? So the only time the team with HCA isn't choking against a similar strength opponent is if they go up 3-0 (or minimum 3-1)? You realize how that is simply not a defebsible argument, right? I wonder how any team up 2-0 and tied after 4 games ever won
You see how this starts to make little sense upon examination? Basically you are making the argument without realizing it that a team is only not choking with HCA when they have a 3-1 lead at minimum after 4 games. There's a reason game 5 of series' are considered critical in close matchups, and that's because closely matched teams usually find a way to be tied 2-2 after 4, and the team that goes up 3-2 gets the advantage.
2016: Again, the series was already trending in the wrong direction. We had lost Game 3 and were trailing in the third quarter of Game 4 when CP3 and Blake got hurt.
Trending in the wrong direction because a Clippers team who didn't have Blake for most of the season and had him just working up to full capacity in those games (Griffin Game 1-3: 14.3 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 4.7 apg, 2.7 tpg, 37% FG
) were up 2-1 instead of 3-0? For you, trending in the wrong direction seems to mean not sweeping.
They lost game 3 by 8 points, they were even with Portland when Paul was on the court. Blake still struggling with explosiveness and his touch was 5/16 with 12 points, it's hard to go up 3-0 as a two star team when one star just came back from a half season long injury and can't play like normal.
In game 4, the Clippers were down 4 points at half time, and down 2 points after the third quarter. They lost the 4th 32-20, Blake only was able to play 1.5 minutes in the 4th, it was a 5 point game when he was taken out. Your argument is that if these two guys had stayed healthy, the Clippers were bound to lose a game that was within two possessions at half time and a 2 point game going into the 4th? Really? Really? Really?
Not just that, but that they had already lost the series by then because of the bad "momentum" of being up 2-1 and being down 2 points after 3 quarters. Hmm...
Chokejobs that were already in progress = made up narrative but I know it can't be decidedly proven wrong.
I mean, really. We all watched Lob City, we all suffered through the Doc era. These teams were never particularly resilient in the playoffs. All these injuries did was mask chokejobs that were already in progress before they happened.
They were consistently the 3-5th seed, they had the smallest wings in the West, and poor wings for any possible contender. The bench was weak after 13-14 when it was still terrible at the wing because Dudley was unplayable later in that season. You don't need to choke to lose in the 2nd round or to lose a 4/5 matchup against a team with the same record. That doesn't mean they didn't have choke moments, but their actual chokes were Paul vs OKC game 5, and losing after up 3-1 vs the Rockets.
You're making a bad argument and dying on the hill of the bad argument for the sake of a narrative.
It's also unfair to use this stat to throw shade on Blake for being "injury-prone" when he wasn't even on CP3's team for half of his blown 2-0 leads. CP3 is the common denominator, not Blake. In the other two series (2008 vs. Spurs, 2021 vs. Bucks) he and his team were healthy and he still blew it in typical CP3 fashion, so clearly you can't blame it all on injuries.
Unfair to whom? What is unfair about anything I said? How is any of that throwing shade? Did it or did it not happen? Blake being injury prone is not a debatable topic, it's simply about reality or not. There's a reason Blake at 32 years old is a much lower tier player than Paul at 36 years old, and it's not because of laziness (Blake is a very hard worker). Blake has played in 8 playoffs, he's suffered a series impacting/ending or season ending injury in 4 of them, including three seasons in a row from 15-16 to 18-19 where he averaged 3 games/playoffs.
According to you, acknowledging this is unfair and throwing shade? Lol, what?
Blake is injury prone, so is Paul, so is Kyrie, so is Anthony Davis, so is Kawhi, etc, now they are injury prone to different degrees, but not everyone gets LeBron genetics. If you think that's throwing shade, you're denying reality.
The stat is about "most
" if half of the "most" a directly related to injuries, then it is very relevant to mention injuries. If we're at two series', we have guys like Tim Duncan (or coach like Pop) whose team did it twice, vs Thunder in 2012 losing final 4 and vs Lakers in 2004 losing final 4. We have Barkley's Suns in back to back seasons vs the Rockets, no injuries were a factor.
The Hornets and Suns lost to teams that were just as good and more experienced. The Hornets series was two teams alternating blowing each other out at home and the veteran Spurs team closing out a Hornets team with multiple first time playoffs guys The Hornets losing was the expected outcome, it would have been considered a massive choke for the Spurs to lose the series, the Hornets were not the favorite outside of having HCA.
Here's what was said going into the playoffs:
New Orleans played the most back-loaded schedule in the league, with 10 games in the final 16 days and 18 in the final month. Eleven of those were on the road, including a six-game Eastern road trip at the end of March and a tough three-games-in-four-nights trip out West the final week.
Here's the expert picks:http://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs2008/series?series=sasnor
I'm not sure you rightly remember how no one thought the Hornets actually had a chance vs the Spurs. Hindsight is great, but I remember these series' in real time. There's nothing special about those two series losses after up 2-0.
Just like Doc - at some point, when your teams blow this many leads in the playoffs, and you are the lone common denominator across multiple franchises and eras, the problem is you, not "bad luck" or "injuries" or your teammates or the refs, or any other excuses people want to come up with.
4 series' is actually pretty statistically insignificant for something like this, and even more so when the player doesn't actually play for one of the series'. Anyone actually including that has no ability to reason or critically think, hence why ESPN is the place where they would cite something like this with no context.
So now at best you're at 3 series', then you want to argue that Paul should have easily beat a 56 win Memphis team with Blake having no effect on games and a struggling addict starting, even though that same team was able to beat a Thunder team with Durant 4-1? This is including 4 in a row. Paul averaged like 32 ppg on 55% FG in the last two losses, but it was on him for what, not averaging 50 ppg on 55% FG instead of just 32?