LA Clippers early offseason in review (HW/bondom34/dbrandon/Slava)

[QRich3]

Clippers net rating with Rivers and no Paul or Blake: -7.6 pp 100 possessions
Clippers net rating with Crawford and no Paul or Blake: -5.7 pp 100 possessions

Same holds if you add in Deandre as well. Clippers without their stars are still worse with Rivers than with Crawford.

In short, you both are factually wrong on this.

lol @ the idea that a 0.02 per-possession difference on a few dozen possessions "factually" says anything. You seem a lot more interested in defending your preconceived notion than getting a fair assessment of each player.

@Qrich,

I made no comments about future performance really. I was simply pointing out that at this point I don't believe Austin is more efficient. I'll admit I'm skeptical about his future efficiency because of the huge jump last year, and according to you and Nick, mostly just the 2nd half. I don't know if that's a small sample size hot streak or the evolution of him as a player.

I don't either tbh, and neither does anyone else, it just plants reasonable doubt which opens the door for the type of contract-gamble that GM's are fond of. Solomon Hill got a similar contract after a similar start to his career, with a much smaller sample size of decent shooting than Austin as one of the pillars of that gamble. Projecting future performance is an essential aspect of giving an NBA contract though.

[HartfordWhalers]

Clippers net rating with Rivers and no Paul or Blake: -7.6 pp 100 possessions
Clippers net rating with Crawford and no Paul or Blake: -5.7 pp 100 possessions

Same holds if you add in Deandre as well. Clippers without their stars are still worse with Rivers than with Crawford.

In short, you both are factually wrong on this.

lol @ the idea that a 0.02 per-possession difference on a few dozen possessions "factually" says anything. You seem a lot more interested in defending your preconceived notion than getting a fair assessment of each player.

2 points per 100 possessions is significant in the NBA.

And you really want to take a look in the mirror before you start throwing out dead set on defending a position in the face of evidence when you are literally ignoring evidence because it is the opposite of what you declared it would be when someone looked.

That's obviously what happens when Crawford plays half his time with the starters and Austin doesn't get any run with them.

This claim right here is factually wrong. You can accuse others of what you are doing as you have so far, or you could instead have acknowledge that it was a claim that is simply not true despite your assumption.

[QRich3]

Clippers net rating with Rivers and no Paul or Blake: -7.6 pp 100 possessions
Clippers net rating with Crawford and no Paul or Blake: -5.7 pp 100 possessions

Same holds if you add in Deandre as well. Clippers without their stars are still worse with Rivers than with Crawford.

In short, you both are factually wrong on this.

lol @ the idea that a 0.02 per-possession difference on a few dozen possessions "factually" says anything. You seem a lot more interested in defending your preconceived notion than getting a fair assessment of each player.

2 points per 100 possessions is significant in the NBA.

And you really want to take a look in the mirror before you start throwing out dead set on defending a position in the face of evidence when you are literally ignoring evidence because it is the opposite of what you declared it would be when someone looked. Thats just ridiculous and amateurish.

haha not gonna let it get too personal but I think you just called me an amateur basketball-forum poster as opposed to a professional one?

2 points per 100 possessions on a sample size of a few dozen possessions is not significant of anything, on/off numbers and NetRtg are fishy enough without a lot of context by themselves. To be honest, I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who builds a case from throwing numbers found in 3 clicks/30 secs as hard rankings of players, and disregards breaking such numbers as "ignoring facts", vs fans of a team that spend many hours during many weeks of many years observing the team, and did also spend those 30 secs in watching those few ranked numbers, and try to explain the significance of them

That's obviously what happens when Crawford plays half his time with the starters and Austin doesn't get any run with them.

This claim right here is factually wrong. You can accuse others of what you are doing as you have so far, or you could instead have acknowledge that it was a claim that is simply not true despite your assumption.

What are exactly those wrong facts you find here? that Jamal plays half his minutes with the starters or that Austin doesn't play a lot with them?

[HartfordWhalers]

That's obviously what happens when Crawford plays half his time with the starters and Austin doesn't get any run with them.

This claim right here is factually wrong. You can accuse others of what you are doing as you have so far, or you could instead have acknowledge that it was a claim that is simply not true despite your assumption.

What are exactly those wrong facts you find here? that Jamal plays half his minutes with the starters or that Austin doesn't play a lot with them?

You claimed that Rivers worse rating is "what happens when Crawford plays half his time with the starters". It is not. It is what happens when Rivers is worse with the bench than Crawford. The numbers show that to be the case, but you keep trying to claim it is just caused by the minutes distribution even though that flies in the face of the actual evidence. And then for maximum irony, you go and accuse someone else of ignoring evidence, which is hilarious.

2 points per 100 possessions on a sample size of a few dozen possessions

Let me guess. You made up it was just a few dozen possessions? And then used your made up argument to support your position. Would it change your mind if you knew the number of possessions, or is this similar to only cause he plays more with the bench argument where facts don't matter?

To be honest, I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who builds a case from throwing numbers found in 3 clicks/30 secs

If it helps, I have a very hard time taking serious someone who makes up an argument and then when confronted with the actual evidence declares that evidence doesn't matter. The "numbers found in 3 clicks/30 secs" are ones directly in response to you saying what they will say, and they show the opposite of what you said they would. If all it takes is 30 seconds, why not get educated and not say stuff that is wrong (but fits your agenda)?

[QRich3]

If it helps, I have a very hard time taking serious someone who makes up an argument and then when confronted with the actual evidence declares that evidence doesn't matter. The "numbers found in 3 clicks/30 secs" are ones directly in response to you saying what they will say, and they show the opposite of what you said they would. If all it takes is 30 seconds, why not get educated and not say stuff that is wrong (but fits your agenda)?

Yeah, I just let myself get dragged into yet another shallow debate about how bad Austin Rivers is, so I'm gonna leave it with this post. Just want to point out that I don't really need those 30 seconds to "educate" myself cause I spend all season tinkling with most of those stats and I notice the trends as they are happening cause, you know, I follow my team. If you think you're just surprising me by telling me Austin's NetRtg is slightly lower than Crawford's, you're very much underrating how geeky I and most of the Clippers fans here are. Your argument though, is always the same, pointing at this big negative number without any nudge that you understand the nuances of how Rivers affects the Clippers performance, or what exactly makes him this bad. Just that you read these numbers. And then you show your insecurity by trying to force big words like "factually" and "evidence" on every post, as if that crap is irrefutable.

My "agenda" by the way, is just an informed opinion. I'm yet to understand why I'm supposed to have an agenda on Austin Rivers but not on Crawford, or Speights, or Pierce, or whichever player on the Clippers I think is bad, if they all play for the same team.

[Wammy Giveaway]

The Clippers are entering an ultimatum season. Doc Rivers is the gambler, the playoffs are the table, and the championship is the prize. And what does he bet? The Clippers franchise star player and no. 1 draft pick, and their transformative superstar point guard.

Win the bet, Chris Paul and Blake Griffin stay with the Clippers.

Lose the bet, Paul and Griffin will be taken away from them. Doc will be out of a job.

And what made him a gambling man in the first place? Why, all those horrid transactions as acting general manager, thinking only of winning a championship in the quickest way possible. Selling his draft picks like a used car salesman because they symbolize rebuilding, and Doc loathes it. No rookies on the hardwood, only veterans, except if you're the coach's son. It's hard enough to be both a coach of, and the president of the worst run franchise in sports history, but to be a father whose son plays for your team only complicates the fundamentals of sports business.

Doc's way of recruiting players starts and ends with the familiar: the guys who once played for him, the guys who defeated him, and the guys who are related to him. Raymond Felton ended Doc's Celtics in the 2013 NBA Playoffs, as well as his tenure as head coach of Boston. Marresse Speights is a former member of the Clipper's arch nemesis Golden State Warriors that won a title in 2015 and own the best regular season record of 73-9. Brandon Bass had a career season under Doc's watch as a Celtic in the 2012 lockout season, and was henceforth given an immediate invitation to join the Clippers. The first player Doc re-signed after Kevin Durant chose Golden State was his own son, a 3-year for $35 million contract which nearly drove Jamal Crawford out of town, and into signing with the Warriors just to get back at his coach for being offered a such a pitiful 1-year $15 million contract versus his offspring's bloated deal.

Compare the dysfunctional operations of Doc Rivers to the trustworthy franchise that is the San Antonio Spurs, signing good character players without egos, who know their own strengths and abide to them, and play for the good of basketball and humanity. The Spur's loyalty is genuine; Doc Rivers institutes blind loyalty. And such blind loyalty can be hazardous, future free agents will not want to sign with the Clippers due to Doc's approach in free agency. It's like a Mile High Club: "You have to have known me, or defeated me, to even get to play for me."

Blind loyalty is trading Lance Stephenson and a 1st round draft pick for a former Celtic in Jeff Green. Green may have been a bad player, but he was a nice guy who wouldn't do anything to damage the friendship between Griffin and Jordan.

Blind loyalty is trading a 1st round draft pick and a young player for your own flesh and blood. Doc was labelled a corrupt GM for putting family over the team, but ironically, this move helped sew up a growing rift within the Clippers locker room.

Blind loyalty is signing Paul Pierce, the only small forward Doc ever loved. Throughout his coaching career, Doc Rivers has never made the conference finals by himself. The only times he ever made the conference finals or beyond were with Pierce. Doc loved Pierce so much, he didn't want any other small forward taking his sacred spot. When it became clear that Lance, Wesley and Pierce were unfit for the position, Doc made the decision of "faking the 3": have a player out of position - point guard, shooting guard or power forward - pretend to be a small forward until Pierce was healthy again. Doc chose Luc Mbah A Moute, a power forward by nature, the worst offensive player for the Clippers, and a good character guy who, like Green, wouldn't cause a rift with the starting 4. It's been an experience, if not a mixed one:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

By faking the 3, Doc ensured that Pierce's position would be safe. By just having Pierce back, Doc believes he'll never lose again. Same thing with Austin, with the believe that love, friendship and family will win them a championship. Pierce and Austin are nothing more than lucky charms at this point, even if Rivers does serve some purpose.

With no future assets or youthful trade chips to speak of, Doc has put the Clippers in a position where the only way he can fix the small forward spot AND get out of luxury tax inferno is by trading one of his Big 3. But that's never going to happen. Blake Griffin, the prime target of trade rumors, was the Clippers number one draft pick whose highlight reel plays brought the franchise out of the gutter. Griffin inspired David Stern to veto the original trade that would have seen CP3 on the Lakers. Griffin means so much to the Clippers, they would rather lose in the playoffs with him than win a championship without him. When the front office got word of Vinny Del Negro attempting a trade of Griffin for Dwight Howard in 2013 to save his job, they canned him. Rumor is, if Doc Rivers tries to trade Blake Griffin for whatever reason, and succeeds, he'll automatically be fired - another case of blind loyalty.

If there's one silver lining to the Clipper's dysfunction, by virtue of Kevin Durant to the Warriors, the west has turned into the east. Will the Spurs be the same after Tim Duncan's retirement? Not while Popovich is still roaming the sidelines. Will Russell Westbrook keep the Thunder in the hunt? Possibly. How about the up and coming Jazz and Timberwolves; and the looming Grizzlies, Rockets and Mavericks? They may be cannon fodder, but they aren't to be underestimated either. Thanks to the balance of power in the west, the Clippers have been gifted the 2nd seed by default.

Watch on YouTube

It feels great to be christened the 2nd best after years of early exits in the first two rounds. No longer will the Clippers have to work extra hard to fight for a higher seed. Just maintain the spot, and you're a shoe-in for your first western conference finals appearance. But there's still work to be done, for the Clippers have huge fatal claws. We know about the complaining, flopping and fighting; the technical and flagrant fouls, and player ejections (Griffin 2, Jordan 1, Austin 1); and their tendency to rig games to steal undeserving wins. They also have a problem with taking competition seriously - all they have to do is look over their shoulder carelessly during a game, and they may unintentionally punch a lottery team's ticket into the playoffs. Sacramento Kings, Phoenix Suns, even the Los Angeles Lakers could become a surprise playoff team if the Clippers don't take care of business keeping lottery teams at bay. In fact, the reason the Golden State Warriors won a title was because the Clippers underestimated them in the 2012-13 season.

Health, luck and a trade will not cut it for the Clipper's upcoming season. To make the western conference finals, they will need to be on their absolute best behavior. Blake Griffin's punching scandal ended any hope of a western conference finals berth before it even began after the Warrior's Stephen Curry was injured. Good karma begets good fortune, like breaking NBA records or doing something good for the community. Bad karma begets bad luck, bad fortune, and unintentional consequences. The Clippers could become a part of The Oddity Archive if they fail to achieve something spectacular this season, such as making the conference finals or drawing the Warriors in the 2nd round and giving them a 7-game series.

The 2nd seed belongs to the Clippers. And all they have to do is this single tiny microscopic little thing: Don't screw it up.

[Smitty731]

Ummmmm.....how does the 2nd seed belong to the Clippers? Are they even better than the Spurs? They certainly could be, but they aren't for certain. First, they need to have everyone healthy. That is no lock. They need to see no drop off from their guys, because it seems unlikely any of them will improve at this point in their careers.

I'd take San Antonio at this point, but not by a wide margin or anything.

And I agree with HW's general premise. The grade for this year is pretty good. The long term grade? Not very good at all.

Also, kudos to Jamal Crawford. I know for a fact the original offer he got from LA was insulting. Very insulting. Like unless you think he sucks so bad he should be out of the league insulting. Then he got an offer from Philadelphia for over $20 million and all of a sudden LA stepped up with the offer he eventually signed. So good on him for playing it well and getting more money and staying where he wanted.

[Gus Fring]

The 2nd seed belongs to the Clippers.

How so? What did the Clippers do to go from 14 games worse than the Spurs to overwhelming favorite over the Spurs?

[HartfordWhalers]

The 2nd seed belongs to the Clippers.

How so? What did the Clippers do to go from 14 games worse than the Spurs to overwhelming favorite over the Spurs?

Healthy Blake + Retired Duncan closes that gap significantly. I wouldn't say the 2nd belongs to either, but I won't be shocked if LAC edges them out. For now I listed SAS at 58 wins, and after having LAC also at 58 I went ahead and bumped them to 60 before posting it yesterday.

[Smitty731]

The 2nd seed belongs to the Clippers.

How so? What did the Clippers do to go from 14 games worse than the Spurs to overwhelming favorite over the Spurs?

Healthy Blake + Retired Duncan closes that gap significantly. I wouldn't say the 2nd belongs to either, but I won't be shocked if LAC edges them out. For now I listed SAS at 58 wins, and after having LAC also at 58 I went ahead and bumped them to 60 before posting it yesterday.

But can we trust Griffin to be healthy? He's missed significant time the last two years. And that was before the absurd injury of breaking his hand.

I'm just not sure he'll be healthy. And Paul seems to be getting nicked more and more.

I think they'll be in the same range, but saying the 2nd belongs to the Clippers is too far for me. They do benefit from 12 division games against the Lakers, Suns and Kings though. The Spurs division is harder to navigate.

[QRich3]

But can we trust Griffin to be healthy? He's missed significant time the last two years. And that was before the absurd injury of breaking his hand.

I do have the Spurs at 2nd, so that "2nd seed belongs to the Clippers" stuff sounds silly to me. But I don't think that about Griffin's injury history is fair. Two seasons ago he missed 15 games because someone used a dirty needle to drain his elbow and it got infected. Then he had the hand thing last year which is more of a being-stupid injury, and a quad injury, which is a muscle thing and not likely to be a recurring injury. Before that, he had missed 4 games in his whole career (and one of those was rest and another a suspension IIRC). If that makes him injury prone, half the guys in the league are a risk too.

[Texas Chuck]

But can we trust Griffin to be healthy? He's missed significant time the last two years. And that was before the absurd injury of breaking his hand.

I do have the Spurs at 2nd, so that "2nd seed belongs to the Clippers" stuff sounds silly to me. But I don't think that about Griffin's injury history is fair. Two seasons ago he missed 15 games because someone used a dirty needle to drain his elbow and it got infected. Then he had the hand thing last year which is more of a being-stupid injury, and a quad injury, which is a muscle thing and not likely to be a recurring injury. Before that, he had missed 4 games in his whole career (and one of those was rest and another a suspension IIRC). If that makes him injury prone, half the guys in the league are a risk too.

Probably have to mention he missed the entire year after being drafted 1st overall too.

[Smitty731]

But can we trust Griffin to be healthy? He's missed significant time the last two years. And that was before the absurd injury of breaking his hand.

I do have the Spurs at 2nd, so that "2nd seed belongs to the Clippers" stuff sounds silly to me. But I don't think that about Griffin's injury history is fair. Two seasons ago he missed 15 games because someone used a dirty needle to drain his elbow and it got infected. Then he had the hand thing last year which is more of a being-stupid injury, and a quad injury, which is a muscle thing and not likely to be a recurring injury. Before that, he had missed 4 games in his whole career (and one of those was rest and another a suspension IIRC). If that makes him injury prone, half the guys in the league are a risk too.

He did miss the entire first season of his career. You can't exactly dismiss that either. He's past that, but it was there.

And the quad thing is serious enough that a lot of teams around the league are wary of it, including the Clippers themselves. It is more than just a muscle injury. There are some structural issues there.

[QRich3]

Yeah, he did miss his rookie year, and then he proceeded to play 5 straight seasons without missing any time but for that silly staph infection that was not a real athlete type of injury. The quad thing is somewhat worrisome, but with the whole offseason to rehab, I don't think stating he can't be relied on to be healthy is a fair assessment. Boozer had the same injury (or very similar, I'm not too versed on the subject tbh) in 2009 and finished his career without another problem. Melo had a similar injury the season before last (he even played half the season through it) and he doesn't seem to be affected now.

I guess it's a case of wanting to see the glass half full or half empty, but counting on him to be injured sounds like an exaggeration to me.

[Scoot McGroot]

Two seasons ago he missed 15 games because someone used a dirty needle to drain his elbow and it got infected.

Wait, what? What kind of doctors are Blake and the Clippers using that dirty needles are ok? Later, there's a mention of a staph infection. You're not saying that a dirty needle caused a staph infection though, right?

[QRich3]

Two seasons ago he missed 15 games because someone used a dirty needle to drain his elbow and it got infected.

Wait, what? What kind of doctors are Blake and the Clippers using that dirty needles are ok? Later, there's a mention of a staph infection. You're not saying that a dirty needle caused a staph infection though, right?

Pretty much, yeah. I have no clue about medical stuff or anything, and who knows how it happened exactly, but it was admitted that he got the staph infection when draining his swollen elbow a few days before. LA Times did a little piece explaining it back then. The Clippers training staff has been in need of a renovation for as long as I can remember.

[Scoot McGroot]

Two seasons ago he missed 15 games because someone used a dirty needle to drain his elbow and it got infected.

Wait, what? What kind of doctors are Blake and the Clippers using that dirty needles are ok? Later, there's a mention of a staph infection. You're not saying that a dirty needle caused a staph infection though, right?

Pretty much, yeah. I have no clue about medical stuff or anything, and who knows how it happened exactly, but it was admitted that he got the staph infection when draining his swollen elbow a few days before. LA Times did a little piece explaining it back then. The Clippers training staff has been in need of a renovation for as long as I can remember.

So, in all likelihood, the Clippers medical staff had nothing to do with staph. Staph infections are incredibly common when you step foot in a hospital, or outpatient procedure center, and it's one reason why doctors try and get you discharged to home ASAP.

But no. The team and doctors aren't using dirty needles. Otherwise, you'd hear of hepatitis, not staph.

[QRich3]

Yeh I mean, I thought it was obvious I was being facetious with the dirty needle stuff, I didn't really think they were re-using the same needle for a bunch of patients, one of them being an athlete worth tenths of millions. I've no idea how common staph infections are, so if you say it doesn't matter how careful they were, I'll take your word for it, but they've been repeatedly careless with a bunch of stuff, one common point being players falling back into muscle injuries after rehab.

[Wammy Giveaway]

A part that I failed to discuss in my review (probably for the best) was the rumored Griffin/Rudy trade that was being considered. The only way they can get a starting small forward is to give up their power forward. It's hard to describe, but it has something to do with the perfect ten theory and the Phil Jackson triangle method, regardless if whether the punching incident and injury history makes him a black sheep. The theories are too convoluted and absurd to explain, so it's best I don't get into it.

The one thing I will say against the Rudy trade is that if the Clippers successfully trade for him, they will automatically miss the playoffs. Teams who've had Rudy all missed the playoffs save for the lockout season. Have a look:

2006-07: Draft-day trade from Rockets to Grizzlies, 15th seed, missed playoffs
2007-08: Grizzlies, 14th seed, missed playoffs
2008-09: Grizzlies, 12th seed, missed playoffs
2009-10: Grizzlies, 10th seed, missed playoffs
2010-11: Grizzlies, suffered shoulder sublaxation (out for year), 8th seed, 2nd round exit to Thunder (without Rudy)
2011-12: Grizzlies, lockout season, 4th seed, active, 1st round exit to Clippers (with Rudy)
2012-13: Grizzlies, traded to Raptors mid-season, 5th seed, conference finals loss to Spurs (without Rudy)
2012-13: Raptors, traded from Grizzlies mid-season, 10th seed, missed playoffs
2013-14: Raptors, traded to Kings near mid-season, 3rd seed, 1st round exit to Nets (without Rudy)
2013-14: Kings, traded from Raptors near mid-season, 13th seed, missed playoffs
2014-15: Kings, 13th seed, missed playoffs
2015-16: Kings, 13th seed, missed playoffs

Every year Rudy spent with a team, the team missed the playoffs. Grizzlies were able to make the playoffs in the lockout season due to the lesser amount of games (66 versus 82), but it also featured the season where the Clippers ushered a 27-point miracle comeback to steal Game 1, and later the series. The moment teams traded Rudy to another team, their fortunes immediately changed. Both Memphis and Toronto were rewarded with conference finals debuts after trading Rudy: while Grizzlies visit was instant, it took the Raptors two years before they had their day.

Right now the Kings have him. The moment they trade Rudy, they will become a playoff contender. If the Kings send Rudy to the Clippers, the Clip's hopes of a western conference finals berth will cease to exist. Doc must avoid the temptation of trading for Rudy at any cost - his job is at stake as it already is.

[Gus Fring]

The 2nd seed belongs to the Clippers.

How so? What did the Clippers do to go from 14 games worse than the Spurs to overwhelming favorite over the Spurs?

Healthy Blake + Retired Duncan closes that gap significantly. I wouldn't say the 2nd belongs to either, but I won't be shocked if LAC edges them out. For now I listed SAS at 58 wins, and after having LAC also at 58 I went ahead and bumped them to 60 before posting it yesterday.

Idk. I don't think Duncan is worth 9 games, especially considering his regression to 25 minutes of good rim protector, solid passing, and not much else. His replacement and the much needed injection of youth to the Spurs should be able to replace his production even if the defense is worse. Plus, the clippers were not significantly better or worse with Griffin last year, I don't know if just having him back adds 7 wins to the Clippers. If they were to win 58 games than that would be the best season in this Clipper core's era. I think alot would have to go right for them to be better than they ever were.