Doctor MJ wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:I'm just not seeing how Damian Lillard is the 84th best player of all time. He really hasn't done much except score a lot in the regular season. If we are overvalueing the regular season then Kyle Lowry would seem like an equally competitive choice.
You're really hammering in the idea that Lillard is terrible in the playoffs, and that's just not how I see it. I'm going to go year by year to take a closer look. It's certainly not that I think Lillard has always looked amazing in the playoffs, but when I've seen a guy do well in the playoffs, even if other times he's struggled, that puts him in a different category for me than "regular season wonder".
'13-14 - Portland upsets Harden's Rockets, who had beat Portland 3-1 in the regular season, in that playoff series Lillard scores 25 PPG on 66% TS. Then in the next round they lost to the eventual champs in a closer context that LeBron's Heatles would give in the finals.
'14-15 - Disappointing loss to Memphis. I'll note though that this is the same Memphis club that had the Warriors down 2-1 and in their two wins stifled the Warriors like crazy. There was something to this Memphis team.
'15-16 - Portland beat the Clippers before losing to the Warriors. I know the Clippers had injury issues, but it's hard for me to look at this performance embarrassing for Lillard.
'16-17 - Lost to Warriors, no real signs of massive problems with Lillard though.
'17-18 - The loss to NO is the big black mark on Lillard's resume no doubt. Thing is, now that we know how the Blazers responded...
'18-19 - Blazers come back stronger, Lillard has an absolutely legendary series against Westbrook/George, teams gets to the WCF.
'19-20 - Lillard looked great all throughout the Bubble and earned respect along the way.
Yeah, I look at all of that and I just don't see a weak playoff performer.
Here again I feel you're not being consistent in your approach, depending upon who you
want to support.
You won't grade Gus Williams by the team success he was part of [because it was more based upon defense--->which Gus was a pretty decent defensive guard, fwiw], but that's exactly what you're doing above: you're grading Lillard based on what HIS TEAM achieved in the playoffs
almost independently of his individual performance.
'14You noted his individual performance in the first round [which was fantastic]. Then you simply note that they lost to the eventual champs, by closer margin than the Heat. While technically true, this is kinda glossing over the fact that they didn't just lose......they were soundly
whupped by an enormous 13.4 ppg. "Closer context" than the Heat is sort of splitting hairs, too (both lost in 5 games, Heat by an only marginally worse 14.0 ppg).
And more importantly toward the context of THIS discussion: they were whupped in part because Lillard was held to a pretty poor series---19.8 ppg @ 48.1% TS, 6.4 apg, 3.2 topg---while the Blazers were held to a pitiful 99.2 ORtg.
'1521.6 ppg @ 49.1% TS, 4.6 apg, 101 ORtg; team held to 102.6 ORtg. Disappointing indeed.
'16They beat a banged up Clipper team in six [though outscored by 1.0 ppg in the series].......and even that was based
more upon their defense, as they managed only a 104.6 ORtg in the series, but held the Clippers to just a 105.7 ORtg [-2.6 from the Clippers' rs standard].
Lillard avg 22.0 ppg @ 51.0% TS, 5.2 apg, 3.0 topg.
CJ McCollum came thru to a roughly equal degree---19.7 ppg @ 54.0% TS, 3.3 apg, 1.8 topg----and the frontcourt came thru to the tune of 14.0 ORebs/game (Plumlee averaging 13.2 rpg in total, as well as leading the team in assists [5.7 apg]).
Lillard did comport himself pretty well in semis against Golden State; they were simply overmatched by a super-team.
'17Nurkic got injured, so the Blazers were depleted, but still.......they didn't just lose. They were swept
by 18.0 ppg, being held to a pitiful 99.5 ORtg. We might struggle to find a more lop-sided defeat in all of NBA history.
"no real....massive problems with Lillard" is perhaps semantically debatable. His rs standard was 27.0 ppg @ 58.6% TS, 5.9 apg, 2.6 topg.
In this series he averaged 27.8 ppg @ 55.0% TS, 3.3 apg, 3.3 topg. Perhaps not "massive", but it's a significant drop from his rs [**again].
**Whereas you've been labeling him as this rock-solid playoff performer, my memory is that by this stage he was already being pursued with criticisms as a shrinking violet of sorts. And that's before '18..... '18CJ McCollum has an excellent series trying to keep them afloat, while Lillard goes for an utterly anemic 18.5 ppg @ 47.1% TS, 4.75 apg, 4.0 topg, as the Blazers are swept by 9.0 ppg.
If he was being pursued by criticisms [perhaps only lightly, but definitely happening] wrt his playoff resiliency by '17, he was now
absolutely buried in them.
'191st round:
Lillard is fairly excellent--->ups his scoring volume AND efficiency. On the flip-side, his assist rate dips a little, while his turnovers jump to a somewhat worrisome 4.4 topg.
Overall, he still easily met [or even exceeded] rs expectation; though I think placing the "legendary" label on it is probably stretching reality a pinch.
And while they advanced further, some details are missing above.....
Semis:
They squeak by in 7 games [though actually outscored by 1.7 ppg in the series]. Lillard averages 25.1 ppg @ 52.8% TS, 6.0 apg, 2.9 topg.
So his ppg is down slightly [from rs standard], shooting efficiency down significantly, assist rate down slightly, turnovers up slightly. Although the Blazers managed to prevail, there's no question this was a down series for Dame.
WCF:
Blazers are swept by 9.5 ppg by a Warrior team playing without Durant.
Lillard averages 22.3 ppg @ 54.6% TS, 8.5 apg, 4.5 topg.
This again is a bit of a down series.
'20While he was fantastic in the bubble [leading up to the playoffs], they were whupped in 5 games [by an average 10.6 ppg] by the eventual champs. Their offense manages just a 105.0 ORtg in the series.
Lillard averaged 24.25 ppg @ 61.8% TS (for reference [because recent league trends are sort of warping what has been historically "normal" in terms of volume and efficiency] he was 30.0 ppg @ 62.7% TS in the rs), with 4.25 apg, 3.5 topg.
So again, a bit of a down series for him.
Add all these up, I'm seeing 3 series [
out of 11] in which he either met or exceeded his regular season standard (which obviously makes 8 of 11 in which he fell short, occasionally by A LOT (e.g. '14 semis, '15 1st round, '18 1st round, arguably others)). He's got literally AT LEAST as many series's where he was legitimately FAR below his usual standard (the "shrinking violet") as he does series's where he managed to meet his rs standard.
None of this is to say he isn't an amazing player who is worthy of consideration here. He absolutely is; and if my criteria were a little less influenced by meaningful longevity, I suspect I'd be supporting him as my front-runner, too.
My points in elaborating on all of this is that:
a) in your effort to support his candidacy you're attempting to afix a label to him that is simply NOT supported by what has actually transpired;
and b) you're not being strictly consistent in how you're evaluating him compared to how you're assessing others.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
