Isiah Thomas vs Chris Paul

[HeartBreakKid]

The 80s had some of the highest scoring games despite there hardly being any 3 point shooting....it isn't even the most violent era of basketball - 60s and 70s were probably rougher just their games were not well syndicated.

A lot of guys here getting influenced heavily by ESPN lol. Probably think Bill Laimbeer clotheslining people was something every team in the NBA did.

In fact, the whole entire image of 80s defense being tough and hard is basically created by the Bad Boy Pistons, who by my record, Isiah Thomas never played against...

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Chris Paul is better but not by as much as some people think. Both guys had annoying sides to them but Isiah hid his behind a great fake smile.

Chris Paul in New Orleans and young Isiah with Tripuka were the most capable versions of themselves at carrying a team. When Young Isiah got hot he was quite unstopable but young Isiah was more steaky than Chris Paul. Cold young Isiah could shoot his team out of a game.

Modern floor spacing helps field goal percentage but Chris Paul is more efficient. It looks Like Isiah peaked higher at assists per posetion.

Don't just assume you have seen Isiahs's best because you saw bad boys Pistons. Older Isiah was a better leader but young Isiah was the better player. But i also think rings are overrated.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Per possession, Chris Paul scores more points on less shots, gets more rebounds, more assists, more steals, and has less turnovers. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that Isiah has “better numbers”? The only category where he outperforms Paul is blocks and Paul’s a much, much better overall defender. Just because Isiah put up slightly better bulk numbers in an era with such high pace and weak defense that his team literally scored 186 points in an NBA game and barely won doesn’t mean he had “better numbers”.

1) The fact that you think the 80s was weak defense throws your credibility out the window. The game where the Pistons scored 186 points...that was ONE game...so what? Out of the 9 highest scoring games in NBA history, 4 of them were played during Isiah's career and 3 of them were played during Paul's career. 4 to 3, I don't think that's a statistically significant difference, do you?

Higher scoring numbers in the 80s had much more to do with better offense than weak defense. The 80s was the pinnacle of unselfish, team play, passing, ball movement, hitting the open man, giving up a good look at the basket to get a teammate open for a better one, pushing the ball quickly in transition to score before the defense gets set. Better shot shot selection, working the ball inside for quality looks from the post, or guys hitting quality looks from the mid range area. Players were more fundamentally sound. The rise of the And-1 mixtape tour in the early 2000s resulted in youth players picking up tons of bad habits, kids came up through the ranks practicing half court shots, alley oops and bouncing the ball off an opponent's head, plays they could never do in a real game. You also had the rise of AAU, the amount of AAU teams in the circuit grow exponentially. It went from a small number of AAU teams who spent more time practicing the fundamentals and played in less games to way more teams, playing tons of games (often times 2 or 3, if not more games in a day) and very little practice of the fundamentals. Not to mention more times in the league, so talent across the league watered down, etc.

Defenses in Paul's era you can't touch the offensive player, no hand checking, no hard fouls, defensive 3 seconds so no big men waiting in the paint to contest shots, etc.

2) Higher pace in the 80s would actually help to explain why Isiah had lower efficiency. The more possessions per game = more tired/fatigued the players get from having to keep up with a faster paced game (not to mention less advancements in strength and conditioning, nutrition, sports science that modern players benefit from, modern players also are less tired/fatigued because there's more days off in between games, less physical play, etc.) so if players are more tired/fatigued it would help to explain lower efficiency.

This is a terrible argument. Try watching an actual regular season game from the '80s. You had to go like 5 feet inside the 3-point line for anyone to even guard you unless you were Jordan or Bird. The complicated schemes for rotation after rotation to keep well spaced teams full of good shooters from getting open looks from 3 were decades away. The average NBA defender probably runs like a mile a game now just trying to avoid giving up shots that weren't even contested in the '80s. Saying the '80s were the pinnacle of team play, ball movement and shot selection is like saying the 1800s were the pinnacle of chess strategy. That's how far behind they were. I know you don't believe me, but I challenge you to just watch ONE QUARTER of any '80s regular season game and tell me I don't have a point. They're all over YouTube.

Offense is more difficult without 3 point shooting. Offense is more difficult when the defenders can handcheck hard. Mid eighties hand checks are not as hard as 1990s hand checks but it is not like the current game.

The fact that guys did not have to defend the 3 did not mean that the defense was unsophisticated. The good defensive teams played an illegal but uncalled zoninsh man to man. There was an art to how far into zone a team coukd go without getting called for an illegal defense. Not having to defend the 3 helped. Teams still play zonish man to man but now they have to defend guys coming off screens at the 3 point line.

[Owly]

1) The fact that you think the 80s was weak defense throws your credibility out the window. The game where the Pistons scored 186 points...that was ONE game...so what? Out of the 9 highest scoring games in NBA history, 4 of them were played during Isiah's career and 3 of them were played during Paul's career. 4 to 3, I don't think that's a statistically significant difference, do you?

Higher scoring numbers in the 80s had much more to do with better offense than weak defense. The 80s was the pinnacle of unselfish, team play, passing, ball movement, hitting the open man, giving up a good look at the basket to get a teammate open for a better one, pushing the ball quickly in transition to score before the defense gets set. Better shot shot selection, working the ball inside for quality looks from the post, or guys hitting quality looks from the mid range area. Players were more fundamentally sound. The rise of the And-1 mixtape tour in the early 2000s resulted in youth players picking up tons of bad habits, kids came up through the ranks practicing half court shots, alley oops and bouncing the ball off an opponent's head, plays they could never do in a real game. You also had the rise of AAU, the amount of AAU teams in the circuit grow exponentially. It went from a small number of AAU teams who spent more time practicing the fundamentals and played in less games to way more teams, playing tons of games (often times 2 or 3, if not more games in a day) and very little practice of the fundamentals. Not to mention more times in the league, so talent across the league watered down, etc.

Defenses in Paul's era you can't touch the offensive player, no hand checking, no hard fouls, defensive 3 seconds so no big men waiting in the paint to contest shots, etc.

2) Higher pace in the 80s would actually help to explain why Isiah had lower efficiency. The more possessions per game = more tired/fatigued the players get from having to keep up with a faster paced game (not to mention less advancements in strength and conditioning, nutrition, sports science that modern players benefit from, modern players also are less tired/fatigued because there's more days off in between games, less physical play, etc.) so if players are more tired/fatigued it would help to explain lower efficiency.

This is a terrible argument. Try watching an actual regular season game from the '80s. You had to go like 5 feet inside the 3-point line for anyone to even guard you unless you were Jordan or Bird. The complicated schemes for rotation after rotation to keep well spaced teams full of good shooters from getting open looks from 3 were decades away. The average NBA defender probably runs like a mile a game now just trying to avoid giving up shots that weren't even contested in the '80s. Saying the '80s were the pinnacle of team play, ball movement and shot selection is like saying the 1800s were the pinnacle of chess strategy. That's how far behind they were. I know you don't believe me, but I challenge you to just watch ONE QUARTER of any '80s regular season game and tell me I don't have a point. They're all over YouTube.

Offense is more difficult without 3 point shooting. Offense is more difficult when the defenders can handcheck hard. Mid eighties hand checks are not as hard as 1990s hand checks but it is not like the current game.

The fact that guys did not have to defend the 3 did not mean that the defense was unsophisticated. The good defensive teams played an illegal but uncalled zoninsh man to man. There was an art to how far into zone a team coukd go without getting called for an illegal defense. Not having to defend the 3 helped. Teams still play zonish man to man but now they have to defend guys coming off screens at the 3 point line.

The question this begs is why they "did not have to guard the three". If it is a good, correct (for the context/era) defense that must imply it was an era of bad/unsophisticated offensive players because they couldn't shoot the three. If they could, then they would take and make them at a decent clip and you outscore your opponents.

It would seem to me that to argue that defending off the man was sensible at the time (a plausible argument) is to argue for the era as simpler and more primitive (which isn't necessarily [but may well be] "worse" depending on how you define the term and your viewing preferences) at least in this respect. FWIW, this would support Iggy's stance and run counter to Hal's.

Re: Handchecking. For mid 80s in games I don't really recall seeing it and otoh, thinking of tough "handsy" and or full-court guards I think much more guys emerging late-eighties or later and mainly primes mostly in the 90s (Harper, Stockton, Bogues, McMillan, Payton, Blaylock). My inclination then is that "not as hard as the 1990s" is true, but quote an understatement though I'm open to the idea I am misremembering.

[-YogiBiz-]

Stockton and Paul are the most overrated players ever, and Isiah, Kobe and Iverson start to be underrated because of the advanced stats.

Advanced stats are very important and I think it helps a lot to analyze a player without a personal bias. But the advanced stats are still a work in progress in a lot of aspects.

What I'm trying to say is, we don't have any stat which can measure how you hurt your team for the shots you don't take.

I'll try to explain it: if you had a 5/15 in clutch possessions in a season, we all agree 33% is not a great %, but what if the rest of your team is 3/25 in those situations? You probably would help your team more taking that low % shot and making your stats worse.

Players like Paul or Stockton, who always play cerebral and don't take too much risky shots are overrated by advanced stats because stats don't penalize them for giving the ball to another player who could take a shot with so much worse success than them.

Also, longevity as well start to be a little bit overrated. Of course a longer and more consistent career should be pick over the shorter one, but if a guy tomorrow enter the league and he only plays for 3 years, averaging 40-20-20 and winning 3 rings, he should be considered for the GOAT for sure.

For me this debate comes down to whether you like the player who makes the safe play 100% regardless if its the right time or you like the player who will attempt the risky play 100% of the time you need him too regardless of outcome. Which would you prefer 8 Seasons of elite play for Paul and no rings vs 4 years of elite play with 2 rings to show for it.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

This is a terrible argument. Try watching an actual regular season game from the '80s. You had to go like 5 feet inside the 3-point line for anyone to even guard you unless you were Jordan or Bird. The complicated schemes for rotation after rotation to keep well spaced teams full of good shooters from getting open looks from 3 were decades away. The average NBA defender probably runs like a mile a game now just trying to avoid giving up shots that weren't even contested in the '80s. Saying the '80s were the pinnacle of team play, ball movement and shot selection is like saying the 1800s were the pinnacle of chess strategy. That's how far behind they were. I know you don't believe me, but I challenge you to just watch ONE QUARTER of any '80s regular season game and tell me I don't have a point. They're all over YouTube.

Offense is more difficult without 3 point shooting. Offense is more difficult when the defenders can handcheck hard. Mid eighties hand checks are not as hard as 1990s hand checks but it is not like the current game.

The fact that guys did not have to defend the 3 did not mean that the defense was unsophisticated. The good defensive teams played an illegal but uncalled zoninsh man to man. There was an art to how far into zone a team coukd go without getting called for an illegal defense. Not having to defend the 3 helped. Teams still play zonish man to man but now they have to defend guys coming off screens at the 3 point line.

The question this begs is why they "did not have to guard the three". If it is a good, correct (for the context/era) defense that must imply it was an era of bad/unsophisticated offensive players because they couldn't shoot the three. If they could, then they would take and make them at a decent clip and you outscore your opponents.

It would seem to me that to argue that defending off the man was sensible at the time (a plausible argument) is to argue for the era as simpler and more primitive (which isn't necessarily [but may well be] "worse" depending on how you define the term and your viewing preferences) at least in this respect. FWIW, this would support Iggy's stance and run counter to Hal's.

Re: Handchecking. For mid 80s in games I don't really recall seeing it and otoh, thinking of tough "handsy" and or full-court guards I think much more guys emerging late-eighties or later and mainly primes mostly in the 90s (Harper, Stockton, Bogues, McMillan, Payton, Blaylock). My inclination then is that "not as hard as the 1990s" is true, but quote an understatement though I'm open to the idea I am misremembering.

First, guys just couldn't hit 3s. They had not grown up with 3s and they did not know that they should be able to hit 3s.
Second, there was a stigma against the ABA. The 3 was considderred a gimmick. The players and coaches did not respect the 3.
Third, the fast break was considdered the efficient offense and their was a fear that 3s create long rebounds that would lead to fast breaks.
Fourth, nobody was practicing the 3. Why practice a shot that was only for desperation situations.
Fifth, the coaches and players had no appreciation for the floor spacing 3s could create. They had not seen that floor spacing so they did not know tgat they were at a disadvantage by not having the kind of floor spacing that 3 point shooting creates.
6th long 2s are horrible shots and so are 3s when you shoot them at under 30 percent.


7th, they apparently could not do math.
Chris Ford was on my home town Celtics in 1980. Me being a ignorant relatively new basketball fan figured that if Chris Fird is hitting 3s at 40% he should shoot more 3s. 40% from 3 = 60% from 2 right. Simple math. Consensus basketball experts plus Chris Ford himself said I was wrong and did not understand basketball. Chris Ford was passing up more open 3s than he shot despite him hitting 3s at 40%.

But Chris Ford was rare back then because most players could hit 3s at 30% and shooting a 3 while coming off a pick or screen with a hand in your face would probably get a player benched. It might get tge screen setter benched too because wgat the hell is he doing setting a screen that far from the basket?

I reject the idea of iggymcfrack and others that todays defenses are significantly more sophisticated than early 1980s defense. I think the regular season pre-4th quarter effort has improved. The defensive rotations required practice and intelligence then and now. But the early 1980s did not have deal with the 3 and guys shooting 3s coming off screens did not happen much even in the 1990s except for Reggie Miller. Patino Knicks were probably the first to use 3s for spacing. The champion Rockets took 3s for spacing to another level. People thought Vernon Maxwell chucking 3s was wrong but Vernon Maxwell was creating space for Hakeem.

You can call the 1980s offense unsophisticated fir how slow they were to understand the value of the 3.

In the early 1980s Boston was of the opinion that the Western conference did not play defense, partly about lack of effort but also because the West was not as physical and tended to obey the rules on zones and hand checking more than the Eastern teams did.

Apparently they had a little crackdown on hand checking in 1978. See the Sports Illustrated article.

Walt Frazier talking in 2000 something.
Q.
How would you do if you played today?
A.
I think it would be easier. The most striking thing missing from the game is hand checking. When I came into the league, you could hand check guys and push them around. Now you can’t put a hand on guys.
That was the biggest transition I had to make as a rookie. Getting accustomed to guys pushing me, mauling me, shoving me around. And we used to pick guys up from baseline to baseline. They don’t do that now.

Sports illustrated 1978-79

https://vault.si.com/vault/1978/11/06/hey-look-ma-no-hands-with-a-third-official-on-the-floor-the-nba-is-using-a-tough-new-interpretation-of-its-old-rule-on-contact-there-is-some-dissatisfaction-but-the-early-results-look-good

"John Havlicek was the absolute master of the hand check," says Phoenix' Paul Westphal. "He'd look like he was just resting his hand on you, but he was so strong and sneaky that he'd actually be grabbing a whole handful of your gut. By the end of the game you'd be all black-and-blue."

"My whole game was hand checking, holding, pushing," says Norm Van Lier. "If I can't touch a guy it's going to be hard."

[Hal14]

Per possession, Chris Paul scores more points on less shots, gets more rebounds, more assists, more steals, and has less turnovers. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that Isiah has “better numbers”? The only category where he outperforms Paul is blocks and Paul’s a much, much better overall defender. Just because Isiah put up slightly better bulk numbers in an era with such high pace and weak defense that his team literally scored 186 points in an NBA game and barely won doesn’t mean he had “better numbers”.

1) The fact that you think the 80s was weak defense throws your credibility out the window. The game where the Pistons scored 186 points...that was ONE game...so what? Out of the 9 highest scoring games in NBA history, 4 of them were played during Isiah's career and 3 of them were played during Paul's career. 4 to 3, I don't think that's a statistically significant difference, do you?

Higher scoring numbers in the 80s had much more to do with better offense than weak defense. The 80s was the pinnacle of unselfish, team play, passing, ball movement, hitting the open man, giving up a good look at the basket to get a teammate open for a better one, pushing the ball quickly in transition to score before the defense gets set. Better shot shot selection, working the ball inside for quality looks from the post, or guys hitting quality looks from the mid range area. Players were more fundamentally sound. The rise of the And-1 mixtape tour in the early 2000s resulted in youth players picking up tons of bad habits, kids came up through the ranks practicing half court shots, alley oops and bouncing the ball off an opponent's head, plays they could never do in a real game. You also had the rise of AAU, the amount of AAU teams in the circuit grow exponentially. It went from a small number of AAU teams who spent more time practicing the fundamentals and played in less games to way more teams, playing tons of games (often times 2 or 3, if not more games in a day) and very little practice of the fundamentals. Not to mention more times in the league, so talent across the league watered down, etc.

Defenses in Paul's era you can't touch the offensive player, no hand checking, no hard fouls, defensive 3 seconds so no big men waiting in the paint to contest shots, etc.

2) Higher pace in the 80s would actually help to explain why Isiah had lower efficiency. The more possessions per game = more tired/fatigued the players get from having to keep up with a faster paced game (not to mention less advancements in strength and conditioning, nutrition, sports science that modern players benefit from, modern players also are less tired/fatigued because there's more days off in between games, less physical play, etc.) so if players are more tired/fatigued it would help to explain lower efficiency.

This is a terrible argument. Try watching an actual regular season game from the '80s. You had to go like 5 feet inside the 3-point line for anyone to even guard you unless you were Jordan or Bird. The complicated schemes for rotation after rotation to keep well spaced teams full of good shooters from getting open looks from 3 were decades away. The average NBA defender probably runs like a mile a game now just trying to avoid giving up shots that weren't even contested in the '80s. Saying the '80s were the pinnacle of team play, ball movement and shot selection is like saying the 1800s were the pinnacle of chess strategy. That's how far behind they were. I know you don't believe me, but I challenge you to just watch ONE QUARTER of any '80s regular season game and tell me I don't have a point. They're all over YouTube.

I believe you're the one who posted in another thread that you rank Chris Paul over Larry Bird all-time, which tells me everything I need to know about your credibility (or lack thereof) when comparing the 80s to modern era

[Lost92Bricks]

The rings would be enough to me if Isiah was an MVP candidate or an All-NBA player in the late 80's.

But he wasn't.

He averaged 18 PPG on 41% shooting in the 1989 playoffs and Joe Dumars won Finals MVP over him. The Pistons were not reliant on him the way Paul's teams were on him. They were similar to the 2004 team that won.

Chris Paul was actually an MVP caliber player in his early years.

Putting Isiah ahead of Paul is 100% ring counting with nothing else considered. Basically rewarding a player because his teams were built better.

[iggymcfrack]

Offense is more difficult without 3 point shooting. Offense is more difficult when the defenders can handcheck hard. Mid eighties hand checks are not as hard as 1990s hand checks but it is not like the current game.

The fact that guys did not have to defend the 3 did not mean that the defense was unsophisticated. The good defensive teams played an illegal but uncalled zoninsh man to man. There was an art to how far into zone a team coukd go without getting called for an illegal defense. Not having to defend the 3 helped. Teams still play zonish man to man but now they have to defend guys coming off screens at the 3 point line.

The question this begs is why they "did not have to guard the three". If it is a good, correct (for the context/era) defense that must imply it was an era of bad/unsophisticated offensive players because they couldn't shoot the three. If they could, then they would take and make them at a decent clip and you outscore your opponents.

It would seem to me that to argue that defending off the man was sensible at the time (a plausible argument) is to argue for the era as simpler and more primitive (which isn't necessarily [but may well be] "worse" depending on how you define the term and your viewing preferences) at least in this respect. FWIW, this would support Iggy's stance and run counter to Hal's.

Re: Handchecking. For mid 80s in games I don't really recall seeing it and otoh, thinking of tough "handsy" and or full-court guards I think much more guys emerging late-eighties or later and mainly primes mostly in the 90s (Harper, Stockton, Bogues, McMillan, Payton, Blaylock). My inclination then is that "not as hard as the 1990s" is true, but quote an understatement though I'm open to the idea I am misremembering.

First, guys just couldn't hit 3s. They had not grown up with 3s and they did not know that they should be able to hit 3s.
Second, there was a stigma against the ABA. The 3 was considderred a gimmick. The players and coaches did not respect the 3.
Third, the fast break was considdered the efficient offense and their was a fear that 3s create long rebounds that would lead to fast breaks.
Fourth, nobody was practicing the 3. Why practice a shot that was only for desperation situations.
Fifth, the coaches and players had no appreciation for the floor spacing 3s could create. They had not seen that floor spacing so they did not know tgat they were at a disadvantage by not having the kind of floor spacing that 3 point shooting creates.
6th long 2s are horrible shots and so are 3s when you shoot them at under 30 percent.


7th, they apparently could not do math.
Chris Ford was on my home town Celtics in 1980. Me being a ignorant relatively new basketball fan figured that if Chris Fird is hitting 3s at 40% he should shoot more 3s. 40% from 3 = 60% from 2 right. Simple math. Consensus basketball experts plus Chris Ford himself said I was wrong and did not understand basketball. Chris Ford was passing up more open 3s than he shot despite him hitting 3s at 40%.

But Chris Ford was rare back then because most players could hit 3s at 30% and shooting a 3 while coming off a pick or screen with a hand in your face would probably get a player benched. It might get tge screen setter benched too because wgat the hell is he doing setting a screen that far from the basket?

I reject the idea of iggymcfrack and others that todays defenses are significantly more sophisticated than early 1980s defense. I think the regular season pre-4th quarter effort has improved. The defensive rotations required practice and intelligence then and now. But the early 1980s did not have deal with the 3 and guys shooting 3s coming off screens did not happen much even in the 1990s except for Reggie Miller. Patino Knicks were probably the first to use 3s for spacing. The champion Rockets took 3s for spacing to another level. People thought Vernon Maxwell chucking 3s was wrong but Vernon Maxwell was creating space for Hakeem.

You can call the 1980s offense unsophisticated fir how slow they were to understand the value of the 3.

In the early 1980s Boston was of the opinion that the Western conference did not play defense, partly about lack of effort but also because the West was not as physical and tended to obey the rules on zones and hand checking more than the Eastern teams did.

Apparently they had a little crackdown on hand checking in 1978. See the Sports Illustrated article.

Walt Frazier talking in 2000 something.
Q.
How would you do if you played today?
A.
I think it would be easier. The most striking thing missing from the game is hand checking. When I came into the league, you could hand check guys and push them around. Now you can’t put a hand on guys.
That was the biggest transition I had to make as a rookie. Getting accustomed to guys pushing me, mauling me, shoving me around. And we used to pick guys up from baseline to baseline. They don’t do that now.

Sports illustrated 1978-79

https://vault.si.com/vault/1978/11/06/hey-look-ma-no-hands-with-a-third-official-on-the-floor-the-nba-is-using-a-tough-new-interpretation-of-its-old-rule-on-contact-there-is-some-dissatisfaction-but-the-early-results-look-good

"John Havlicek was the absolute master of the hand check," says Phoenix' Paul Westphal. "He'd look like he was just resting his hand on you, but he was so strong and sneaky that he'd actually be grabbing a whole handful of your gut. By the end of the game you'd be all black-and-blue."

"My whole game was hand checking, holding, pushing," says Norm Van Lier. "If I can't touch a guy it's going to be hard."

Really interesting article. I love how the takeaway is "OMG, as of 1978, you basically can't put your hands on the offensive player at all in any useful way. Whatever will happen to defense?" They're basically saying that it's a foul almost any time you touch someone. So much for the "crazy rugged defense allowed all through the '80s".

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Re: Handchecking. For mid 80s in games I don't really recall seeing it and otoh, thinking of tough "handsy" and or full-court guards I think much more guys emerging late-eighties or later and mainly primes mostly in the 90s (Harper, Stockton, Bogues, McMillan, Payton, Blaylock). My inclination then is that "not as hard as the 1990s" is true, but quote an understatement though I'm open to the idea I am misremembering.

In the early 1980s Boston was of the opinion that the Western conference did not play defense, partly about lack of effort but also because the West was not as physical and tended to obey the rules on zones and hand checking more than the Eastern teams did.

Apparently they had a little crackdown on hand checking in 1978. See the Sports Illustrated article.

Walt Frazier talking in 2000 something.
Q.
How would you do if you played today?
A.
I think it would be easier. The most striking thing missing from the game is hand checking. When I came into the league, you could hand check guys and push them around. Now you can’t put a hand on guys.
That was the biggest transition I had to make as a rookie. Getting accustomed to guys pushing me, mauling me, shoving me around. And we used to pick guys up from baseline to baseline. They don’t do that now.

Sports illustrated 1978-79

https://vault.si.com/vault/1978/11/06/hey-look-ma-no-hands-with-a-third-official-on-the-floor-the-nba-is-using-a-tough-new-interpretation-of-its-old-rule-on-contact-there-is-some-dissatisfaction-but-the-early-results-look-good

"John Havlicek was the absolute master of the hand check," says Phoenix' Paul Westphal. "He'd look like he was just resting his hand on you, but he was so strong and sneaky that he'd actually be grabbing a whole handful of your gut. By the end of the game you'd be all black-and-blue."

"My whole game was hand checking, holding, pushing," says Norm Van Lier. "If I can't touch a guy it's going to be hard."

Really interesting article. I love how the takeaway is "OMG, as of 1978, you basically can't put your hands on the offensive player at all in any useful way. Whatever will happen to defense?" They're basically saying that it's a foul almost any time you touch someone. So much for the "crazy rugged defense allowed all through the '80s".

I slightly watched NBA in 1977-78 but not enough to notice increased foul calls on hand checking in 1978-79. I was primarily a hockey fan in the 1970s. I started really watching Cedric Maxwell and the Celtics in 1978-79.

In 1960s video I see hand contact called tightly like it has been called in recent years. One differece was they were calling offensive fouls as tighly as defensive fouls in the 1960s. The early and mid 1980s had more hand checking than the current era but not the outright pushing that was going on in the early 1990s.

Notice Westphal has quoted as saying Havlicek's hand check was sneaky. Early 1990s hand checks were pretty blatant, not sneaky.

Somewhere I heard that the origninal intend of the hand check was just tomfeel where the offensive player was going and was not to in any way alter the offenive players movement. That person I can't remember said the hand check allowed the defender to turn his head and look at the ball without not knowing if his man was taking off; but that would be an off the ball hand check.

I will need to go back and look at Mo Cheeks. Cheeks was able to defend dribbles well but I am not sure that he used a hand check.

1980s ball was definteky more physical than current ball but a lot of that physicality was the battle for inside rebounding position. The rebounding position battle is not as big a part of the game anymore. The inside screens coukd also get physical. There is not as much running through traffic now that the game has moved out to the 3 point line.

Chris Paul in 2008 was driving through traffic. There as been continued movinng of the game away from the paint since 2008. 2008 David West and Tyson Chandler were not working outside. Out dont rember them setting picks at the 3 point line. I don't think Peja, Mo Pete and Pargo were shooting 3s off the dribble or 3s coming off screens. They were better catch and shoot 3 point shooters the Bad Boy Pistons had but they could not quickly catch and shoot coming off a screen like Klay Thompson or shoot off the dribble. I think 2008 waa the most impressive version of Chris Paul.

[70sFan]

Havlicek was very physical man defender and he used hand checking a lot more than most players in 1980s.

[homecourtloss]

The question this begs is why they "did not have to guard the three". If it is a good, correct (for the context/era) defense that must imply it was an era of bad/unsophisticated offensive players because they couldn't shoot the three. If they could, then they would take and make them at a decent clip and you outscore your opponents.

It would seem to me that to argue that defending off the man was sensible at the time (a plausible argument) is to argue for the era as simpler and more primitive (which isn't necessarily [but may well be] "worse" depending on how you define the term and your viewing preferences) at least in this respect. FWIW, this would support Iggy's stance and run counter to Hal's.

Re: Handchecking. For mid 80s in games I don't really recall seeing it and otoh, thinking of tough "handsy" and or full-court guards I think much more guys emerging late-eighties or later and mainly primes mostly in the 90s (Harper, Stockton, Bogues, McMillan, Payton, Blaylock). My inclination then is that "not as hard as the 1990s" is true, but quote an understatement though I'm open to the idea I am misremembering.

First, guys just couldn't hit 3s. They had not grown up with 3s and they did not know that they should be able to hit 3s.
Second, there was a stigma against the ABA. The 3 was considderred a gimmick. The players and coaches did not respect the 3.
Third, the fast break was considdered the efficient offense and their was a fear that 3s create long rebounds that would lead to fast breaks.
Fourth, nobody was practicing the 3. Why practice a shot that was only for desperation situations.
Fifth, the coaches and players had no appreciation for the floor spacing 3s could create. They had not seen that floor spacing so they did not know tgat they were at a disadvantage by not having the kind of floor spacing that 3 point shooting creates.
6th long 2s are horrible shots and so are 3s when you shoot them at under 30 percent.


7th, they apparently could not do math.
Chris Ford was on my home town Celtics in 1980. Me being a ignorant relatively new basketball fan figured that if Chris Fird is hitting 3s at 40% he should shoot more 3s. 40% from 3 = 60% from 2 right. Simple math. Consensus basketball experts plus Chris Ford himself said I was wrong and did not understand basketball. Chris Ford was passing up more open 3s than he shot despite him hitting 3s at 40%.

But Chris Ford was rare back then because most players could hit 3s at 30% and shooting a 3 while coming off a pick or screen with a hand in your face would probably get a player benched. It might get tge screen setter benched too because wgat the hell is he doing setting a screen that far from the basket?

I reject the idea of iggymcfrack and others that todays defenses are significantly more sophisticated than early 1980s defense. I think the regular season pre-4th quarter effort has improved. The defensive rotations required practice and intelligence then and now. But the early 1980s did not have deal with the 3 and guys shooting 3s coming off screens did not happen much even in the 1990s except for Reggie Miller. Patino Knicks were probably the first to use 3s for spacing. The champion Rockets took 3s for spacing to another level. People thought Vernon Maxwell chucking 3s was wrong but Vernon Maxwell was creating space for Hakeem.

You can call the 1980s offense unsophisticated fir how slow they were to understand the value of the 3.

In the early 1980s Boston was of the opinion that the Western conference did not play defense, partly about lack of effort but also because the West was not as physical and tended to obey the rules on zones and hand checking more than the Eastern teams did.

Apparently they had a little crackdown on hand checking in 1978. See the Sports Illustrated article.

Walt Frazier talking in 2000 something.
Q.
How would you do if you played today?
A.
I think it would be easier. The most striking thing missing from the game is hand checking. When I came into the league, you could hand check guys and push them around. Now you can’t put a hand on guys.
That was the biggest transition I had to make as a rookie. Getting accustomed to guys pushing me, mauling me, shoving me around. And we used to pick guys up from baseline to baseline. They don’t do that now.

Sports illustrated 1978-79

https://vault.si.com/vault/1978/11/06/hey-look-ma-no-hands-with-a-third-official-on-the-floor-the-nba-is-using-a-tough-new-interpretation-of-its-old-rule-on-contact-there-is-some-dissatisfaction-but-the-early-results-look-good

"John Havlicek was the absolute master of the hand check," says Phoenix' Paul Westphal. "He'd look like he was just resting his hand on you, but he was so strong and sneaky that he'd actually be grabbing a whole handful of your gut. By the end of the game you'd be all black-and-blue."

"My whole game was hand checking, holding, pushing," says Norm Van Lier. "If I can't touch a guy it's going to be hard."

Really interesting article. I love how the takeaway is "OMG, as of 1978, you basically can't put your hands on the offensive player at all in any useful way. Whatever will happen to defense?" They're basically saying that it's a foul almost any time you touch someone. So much for the "crazy rugged defense allowed all through the '80s".

Agreed. People can watch hundreds of ‘80s/‘90s games online. Randomly pick 10 different spots in the video and see how many offensive possessions were disrupted by handchecking. Whoever does this will come away thinking, “I didn’t really see any big deal at all.”

[JordansBulls]

Isiah with Harden would have won a title.

[iggymcfrack]

Isiah with Harden would have won a title.

CP3 was 32 when he first played with Harden. At age 32, Isiah averaged 15/3/7 on .488 TS% in the regular season and 14/5/7 on .453 TS% in the postseason. If he replaces Paul on the 2017/18 Rockets at that age, I don't know if he even gets minutes. If he does, it would just be short stretches against bench units when Harden sits.

[Owly]

Isiah with Harden would have won a title.

CP3 was 32 when he first played with Harden. At age 32, Isiah averaged 15/3/7 on .488 TS% in the regular season and 14/5/7 on .453 TS% in the postseason. If he replaces Paul on the 2017/18 Rockets at that age, I don't know if he even gets minutes. If he does, it would just be short stretches against bench units when Harden sits.

Actually that Thomas playoff run you are citing is age 30. The Pistons didn't make the playoffs in his age 32 season going 20-62 (-7.46 SRS) and performing better with Thomas off the court (my figures differ slightly from the RAPM estimate spreadsheet but I have him on for 1750 minutes, Pistons -408 during that time [-11.19085714 per 48] versus -230 over 2196 minutes with him off [-5.027322404 per 48]. Roster instability, combined with the nature of the metric itself, renders this very noisy of course.

[bledredwine]

To me, Isiah is the most under appreciated guy to play the game.

Who do you got?

I agree with this.

I also think that Chris Paul is by far the most over-appreciated player to play the game. In 2009, I told realgm that Chris Paul wouldn’t even come close to winning a championship as an undisputed first option. 11 years later, I was right.

Vote Zeke.

[bledredwine]

Isiah with Harden would have won a title.

CP3 was 32 when he first played with Harden. At age 32, Isiah averaged 15/3/7 on .488 TS% in the regular season and 14/5/7 on .453 TS% in the postseason. If he replaces Paul on the 2017/18 Rockets at that age, I don't know if he even gets minutes. If he does, it would just be short stretches against bench units when Harden sits.

Comparing a shell injured Isiah to 21st century Chris Paul is disingenuous. He was a playoff beast and at his peak, reached a (yeah, much) higher level than Paul has. It’s a shame that his career was short-lived.... and he did it as a little guy in the 80s. Isiah was definitely a better player. I find it funny that many here think otherwise.

Only Magic, Jordan, Bird were better (Moses wasn’t, contrary to what a few here say, nor was even Hakeem imo).

Regardless of opinion, Paul getting bested by all Star guards in the playoffs more than half of the time, with a few chokes and no success is plenty of valid reason for me to believe that he doesn’t belong in this discussion.

[Hal14]

Isiah with Harden would have won a title.

CP3 was 32 when he first played with Harden. At age 32, Isiah averaged 15/3/7 on .488 TS% in the regular season and 14/5/7 on .453 TS% in the postseason. If he replaces Paul on the 2017/18 Rockets at that age, I don't know if he even gets minutes. If he does, it would just be short stretches against bench units when Harden sits.

Actually that Thomas playoff run you are citing is age 30. The Pistons didn't make the playoffs in his age 32 season going 20-62 (-7.46 SRS) and performing better with Thomas off the court (my figures differ slightly from the RAPM estimate spreadsheet but I have him on for 1750 minutes, Pistons -408 during that time [-11.19085714 per 48] versus -230 over 2196 minutes with him off [-5.027322404 per 48]. Roster instability, combined with the nature of the metric itself, renders this very noisy of course.

Simply taking one guy who came into the league in 81 and another guy who came into the league 24 years later in 05 and saying "oh, this guy was better at age 32 than the other guy" is an apples to oranges comparison.

As has been discussed in this thread, Isiah played in a completely different league than Paul, one that was geared towards the big men and was much more physical. Paul plays in a softer league that is more geared towards the smaller players.

Isiah took a beating:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

That is why Isiah at age 32 vs Paul at age 32 is apples to oranges. It's why Isiah retired at 33 whereas Paul is still playing at an all-star level at 35.

Not to mention that despite playing 2 less seasons than Paul, Isiah played in 11 more playoff games.

[Owly]

CP3 was 32 when he first played with Harden. At age 32, Isiah averaged 15/3/7 on .488 TS% in the regular season and 14/5/7 on .453 TS% in the postseason. If he replaces Paul on the 2017/18 Rockets at that age, I don't know if he even gets minutes. If he does, it would just be short stretches against bench units when Harden sits.

Actually that Thomas playoff run you are citing is age 30. The Pistons didn't make the playoffs in his age 32 season going 20-62 (-7.46 SRS) and performing better with Thomas off the court (my figures differ slightly from the RAPM estimate spreadsheet but I have him on for 1750 minutes, Pistons -408 during that time [-11.19085714 per 48] versus -230 over 2196 minutes with him off [-5.027322404 per 48]. Roster instability, combined with the nature of the metric itself, renders this very noisy of course.

Simply taking one guy who came into the league in 81 and another guy who came into the league 24 years later in 05 and saying "oh, this guy was better at age 32 than the other guy" is an apples to oranges comparison.

As has been discussed in this thread, Isiah played in a completely different league than Paul, one that was geared towards the big men and was much more physical. Paul plays in a softer league that is more geared towards the smaller players.

Isiah took a beating:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

That is why Isiah at age 32 vs Paul at age 32 is apples to oranges. It's why Isiah retired at 33 whereas Paul is still playing at an all-star level at 35.

Not to mention that despite playing 2 less seasons than Paul, Isiah played in 11 more playoff games.

1) You seem to be addressing the wrong poster. I am accurately stating that Isiah did not make the playoffs at 32 and that Detroit did better with him off the court that year. Your post pertains to none of this.

2) The "apples to oranges" comparison was instigated by JordansBulls. You should probably take up your problem with them.

3) It, based on the evidence cited, appears to be your contention that Thomas retired/was ineffective in his 30s due to head trauma from two incidents. Do you have evidence for this? If this is not the contention, what precisely is it and what systematic review of players' longevity across eras relating to different sizes and what study into the frequency of injuries of whatever sort and the relative impact on career longevity (and longevity of quality) across size and era are you looking at?

A more limited claim, that Isiah was tough, played through injuries would be verifiable and correct. Positing two head-shots (1 cheap, seemingly intentional on a drive; one seemingly accidental going for a rebound - something he did considerably less than Paul) as the norm and somehow evidence of what led to his decline seems to me wrong (in the sense of it being the norm) and tenuous at best (as to how such shots led to his decline/retirement or representing significant evidence of such).

[bledredwine]

I have made this post before but this is solid proof of why I believe Chris Paul isn't an all time great player (top 30... if that).


Chris Paul's playoff struggles


Missing from this post was this (2019 or 2018, forgot which) disappearance and going 3 for 14 with 3 turnovers, and 5 fouls in a pivotal game with James Harden crushing it to the already pretty long list of struggles for Chris Paul.

Chris Paul has more playoff series in which he was outplayed by a notable PG (2009 Billups, 2012 Parker, 2014 Curry, 2014 Westbrook) than vice-versa (2008 Parker and 2016 Lillard). How can someone be a top 5 PG of all-time when he is usually outplayed by opposing PGs from his own era in playoff series?

If Chris Paul was one to confidently win his matchups, then I would have a different opinion of him. But add that he hasn't stood out from Westbrook/young Steph and the collapses? I can't rank him top 5... since 2008 (despite game 7, he was top 5 IMO)

This article explains my woes with Paul better than my memory can. Paul has simply had way too many collapses in the playoffs. - http://chrispauloverrated.blogspot.com/2017/02/section-1-myth-that-chris-paul-doesnt.html



2008 WCSF

1. Tyson Chandler was mainly responsible for Duncan shooting 42.1% FG in the 2008 WCSF

Tim Duncan 2008 Playoffs

10 games vs PHX/LAL
23.6 ppg 15.6 rpg 46.1% FG (95/206)

7 games vs NOH
15.3 ppg 13.0 rpg 42.1% FG (40/95)

This is the 3rd-worst shooting series of Duncan's career after the 2016 WCSF (Age 40 and last series of his career) and 2005 Finals. Stacked defensive help by Chandler.

2. Paul had a huge statistical series, but choked in the most critical stretch of Game 7 with the season on the line.

In the last 6:50 of Game 7, CP3 had 0 points on 0/2 FG with 1 assist to 1 turnover

3. He allowed Tony Parker to have 8 points in the 4th quarter including the sealing shot in CP3's overrated face, and expose his defense for the series.

4. Jannero Pargo had 16 pts in 4th quarter of Game 7.

5. Chandler held Duncan to 2 pts in 4th quarter of Game 7
- Both points came on a foul by David West

6. David West had 20 ppg 9 rpg on 45% in the series. Some of this was due to Paul's passing, but West also had 15-16 ppg during the Pacers 2012 ECSF, 2013 ECF, and 2014 ECF playoff runs. West was playing less minutes than in New Orleans, in longer playoff runs, and without any good playmakers to set him up.

No excuses about not enough help there.

CP3 individually failed his team in the season-deciding stretch of Game 7, not the other way around. If any true all-time great had 0 points in the last near-7 minutes of a Game 7, and got the dagger nailed in their face, everybody would be all over them regardless of their statistical performance.

But because everyone unconsciously knows that CP3 isn't a true great, nobody remembers this choke job because he isn't held to an all-time great standard (even though most don't realize it), yet he gets undeserved praise an all-time great without being held to that standard.

2009 1st Round

Paul was dominated, exposed, outplayed, and destroyed individually by Chauncey Billups, after Paul had his best statistical year. Paul individually failed his team, not the other way around, by getting destroyed by Billups.

The Nuggets were the better team, because Billups was on the team and thoroughly destroyed Paul individually - proving he was vastly superior than Paul on both the team and individual levels

Chauncey Billups
23-4-7 on 48%, 1.2 TOpg and 66% 3PT

Billups completely dominated Chris Paul individually
during the 2009 Playoffs, yet Chris Paul rarely receives
criticism for his individually horrendous performance

Chris Paul
17-4-10 on 41%, 4.8 TOpg

Billups badly exposed Chris Paul's defense. He scored way more efficiently and was the way better playmaker, Paul had quadruple the turnovers as Billups. Billups had a 6:1 ast:to ratio to Paul's 2:1

This was after CP3 had his best statistical year, joining Magic and KJ as the only players to average 20-10 on 50% in a season (Magic and KJ did it twice each).

2010 - injured

2011 and 2013
He put up big numbers in 1st round exits with sub-par help. Rod Strickland did the same thing against better teams from 1994-1997, with less help. No big deal, nothing all-time great worthy.

2012 WCSF
Paul = 13-4-9-3 on 37% in 38 mpg and 4.5 TOpg
Bledsoe = 12-3-2-2-1 on 70% in 22 mpg (16 less mpg)
Blake Griffin - 21-8-2-1-2 on 47%

So much for Paul not having help. He wasn't even the 2nd best player on his team or the 2nd best PG in the series.

Chris Paul played horribly individually against
the only 60+ win team (adjusted for 82 games)
he has faced in the playoffs, the 2012 Spurs.
After both Parker (7-11 on 11%) and Paul (6-10 on 23%) played terrible in Game 1
Parker averaged 21-4-7 on 40% for the last 3 games
C. Paul averaged 15-4-9 on 41% in the last 3 games.

Parker clearly outplayed Chris Paul for the series after accounting for the Game 1 anomaly in which both played poorly. CP3 individually failed his team, not the other way around.

2014 1st Round
Steph Curry
23-4-8 on 44%

Chris Paul
17-5-9 on 42%

Paul won only because he had the better supporting cast. Curry clearly outplayed him, despite having less help. Curry had to play more minutes obviously, because his 2nd option Klay Thompson was outscored by Jamal Crawford off the bench in 12 less mpg, and because Griffin was the best Clipper in the series putting up 23-6-4 on 53%, taking the pressure off CP3.

CP3 also averaged 3.8 fouls per game in the series, up from his 2014 season average 2.5. With 5+ fouls in 3 of 7 games and 4+ fouls in 4 of 7 games. His inability to defend without foul trouble contributed to Curry's individually superior performance and Paul's lesser minutes compared to Curry.

For all the excuses we hear about how CP3 "never has any help" and has to "carry the team" the only reason the Clippers made it to the 2nd round is because Paul got bailed out by his teammates, such as Griffin being the best Clipper in that series, after Curry outplayed him individually. Not the other way around. Further undermining the "no-help" excuses and doctrines of CP3 apologists.



Had Paul, in Game 5, not turned the ball over
to Russell, fouled him on the three, and
turned it over on the game-winning attempt,
the Clippers would have been in great
position to advance to the 2014 WCF.
2014 WCSF
CP3 was individually outplayed by Russell Westbrook.

Russell Westbrook
28-6-9 on 49% and 50/57 FTs (89%)

Chris Paul
23-4-12 on 51% and 18/24 FTs (75%)

Westbrook scored way more and way more efficiently as he went to the line more than twice as much, shooting almost 90%. Paul also choked away the eventually deciding Game 5 with his 2 turnovers in the clutch, including on the game winning attempt. He fouled Westbrook on his 3pter, so Russell made 3 FTs to take the lead.

Westbrook outplayed him in the clutch of the eventually deciding game, further cementing that Westbrook outplayed him for the series. Had Paul not done that epic choke job, the Clippers would have been up 3-2 with Game 6 in LA.

Chris Paul apologists have fabricated a myth claiming that he played great defense on Durant, but the truth is that Durant repeatedly had success in the few brief instances Paul matched up with him.

It's worth noting that despite Paul's good statistics, he allowed Westbrook to perform even better due to Paul's bad defense, negating the value of Paul's good statistical performance. Paul individually failed his team, not the other way around, by getting outplayed by OKC's 2nd best player and by choking away the swing Game 5 that went on to decide the series.

2015 WCSF
Griffin led the Clippers to a 1-1 split to steal homecourt without Chris Paul, putting up 30-15-9 on 52% without him in the first 2 games. They did exactly what they were supposed to without Paul. Blake had 27-12-5 on 56% and Deandre had 14-13 with 2 spg 2 bpg in the series. No excuses about help

Game 5
- CP3 had 12 points and 4 assists after losing by 15+
- roughly half of his 22-10 stat line were in blowout situations

Despite great help from Griffin and
Deandre, Paul choked away a 3-1 lead,
the worst of which was shooting 1-6
in the 4th quarter of Game 6 before
a garbage time three, blowing a
13-point 4th quarter lead

Game 6
- CP3 had 1-6 FG in the 4th quarter before a garbage time 3 to make it 2-7 FG
- His failure to step up led to the Clippers blowing a 13-point 4th quarter lead

Game 7
- CP3 had 17 points 3 assists for 3 quarters, losing by 17 at the end of 3
- had 9 points and 7 assists in the 4th when it was already too late, losing by 13
- finished with a deceptive 26-10 stat line

Games 5-6-7
Blake 28-12-3 on 55%
Deandre 12-12 wth 2.3 spg 2.7 bpg
Keep in mind the Rockets best perimeter defender Patrick Beverly did not play in this series, but Paul still couldn't beat an undermanned team - more proof of his severe incompetence as a leader. As if failing to make it to the WCF despite never playing a Finals/Title caliber team despite plenty of help isn't proof enough.

CP3 wasn't even the best player when they won in the 1st round against the Spurs, so we can't hear any excuses about help when he wasn't even the main reason they made it to the 2nd round

2015 1st Rd
Griffin 24-13-7 on 47% FG - 76% FT
Paul 23-5-8 on 51% FG - 97% FT

Griffin only had only 0.5 less APG than CP3 but had +8.5 RPG and +1.4 PPG than CP3. In each of the last 2 playoff series that Chris Paul won, Blake led both teams in scoring and Deandre led both teams in rebounding and blocks, against the 2014 Warriors and 2015 Spurs. Chris Paul was not even the best player in half the playoff series he won.

2016 - injured
But Lillard shot 60% when guarded by Paul's overrated defense

2017 1st Round
In the 2017 1st Round, Chris Paul dealt with the absence of Blake Griffin due to injury after Game 3. Paul deserves some credit for a good statistical series, but at the same time he also deserves criticism for having 0 points in the 4th quarter of Game 7 and shooting 32% for Game 7 as a whole. Chris Paul also played terrible defense, getting lit up by George Hill and Gordon Hayward.

Chris Paul, Game 7 vs Jazz
- 2 points on 1/9 FG, 4 ast to 2 TOs in the 2nd half of Game 7
- 0 points on 0/8 FG, 4 ast to 2 TOs after 11:00 mark of 3rd quarter

The Jazz were not that great when at full health, and weren't at full health for more than half the series. Gobert missed the first 3 games due to injury and Hayward missed the last 3 quarters of Game 4 due to illness. So for the first 4 games out of 7 the Jazz were missing one of their two best players. Not that surprising that CP3 had a big statistical series against a team that was undermanned in most of the games, and won't pass the 2nd round even if fully healthy.

The most important thing we learned from this series is that the Clippers are
- 1-3 in the playoffs when CP3 plays but Griffin does not
- 1-1 in the playoffs when Griffin plays and CP3 does not, while playing against a better team in the Rockets.

And CP3 and Griffin were in their primes during all of those games, so it is not an unfair sample size. So the great help that Blake Griffin has given to the Clippers and his vital role in their success has been grossly undervalued all this time by the Chris Paul apologists who, rather than appreciate how much Paul benefits from great help like Griffin, prefer to use use him as a scapegoat for Paul's individual shortcomings as a Clipper instead.

In summary, Chris Paul had
- a 20+ ppg teammate in all four of his 2nd-round series exits (2008, 2012, 2014, 2015)
- a 22-24 ppg and 11-15 rpg teammate in 3 of his 4 series wins
- had Blake Griffin and Deandre Jordan lead all players in both teams in PPG, RPG, BPG in 2 of his 4 series wins (2014 and 2015 1st Rounds)
- while never facing the best teams - no team that beat him made the Finals.