RealGM

Garnett was a bit younger than duncan, had comparable impact metrics of any kind and an approach generally less liked (garnett for not being a traditional post up big, paul for not beint agresssive enough im his passing) by the dogmas of its time

garnett and paul had serious injury issues and won very little in their primes despite impressove individual stats or impact numbers

curry and duncan were the centerpieces in really talented teams with other stars (including a impact metrics superstar in ginobili/draymond who got little mainstream recognition as such) that won a lot of rings and had strong continuity

it seems like a lot od the pro/against paul and garnett arguments are fairly similar

i an correct here?

I would not say Garnett had injury issues comparable to CP3, but overall I can see the parallels.

If you squint hard enough, sure.

falcolombardi wrote:Garnett was a bit younger than duncan, had comparable impact metrics of any kind and an approach generally less liked (garnett for not being a traditional post up big, paul for not beint agresssive enough im his passing) by the dogmas of its time

garnett and paul had serious injury issues and won very little in their primes despite impressove individual stats or impact numbers

curry and duncan were the centerpieces in really talented teams with other stars (including a impact metrics superstar in ginobili/draymond who got little mainstream recognition as such) that won a lot of rings and had strong continuity

it seems like a lot od the pro/against paul and garnett arguments are fairly similar

i an correct here?

Good thoughts. I'm going to risk jumping back into this a bit here just because I think this is something distinct from the Paul/Curry thread.

1. Yes, there are things in common. Someone going by rings is going to side with Duncan/Curry clearly, and the comparison with their contemporary rival should be closer than that in both cases.

2. Duncan & Curry have the continuity. Duncan having landed in the absolutely perfect situation in Year 1, Curry in Year 6. By contrast, Garnett & Paul started in less than ideal situations with Garnett stuck for 12 years and Paul for 6.

3. I think it's important to keep in mind that it's Garnett & Curry that have the new skillsets - and I would rate them particularly high in areas like portability/scalability - while Duncan & Paul are the traditionalists. As someone who was converted to being on the pro-KG side rather than anti, seeing the way he got used in Boston on defense along with how tall playmakers are now made sue of with 3-point shooters around him makes me super-high on what his teams could have been doing his entire career. Curry doesn't have things as bad, but his star-start was delayed for similar reasons. By contrast, Duncan & Paul fit into classic molds and their teams changed everyone else to play around them from day one.

4. Playoff success aside, worth noting it's Garnett & Curry who were on the most dominant regular season teams at their peak, and it's Duncan & Paul who had their best regular season teams and arguably best post-season teams very late in their career after they stopped being serious MVP candidates. (You might say something similar about KG, but he was on pace for the MVP in '07-08 until the injury.)

With my opinions being so known I don't want to belabor them and will simply say that there are smart basketball here who side with Duncan & Paul.

Sort of, although you may be overrating the talent that Duncan had some of those years. For example, Duncan's 03 carry job championship was one that I don't think KG would be able off or at least look less impressive while doing it.

KG's weaknesses were probably more pronounced in the playoffs than Paul's while Curry's more so than Duncan's. KG outside of 04 really didn't have have very good teammates, Paul did have good teammates all star type teammates in NOH and LAC. You can debate whether they were good enough to win, but as has been talked about Paul while his numbers usually looked great I don't subscribe to this silly narrative that 100% of the blame go on his teammates and that he was perfect.

I think Oscar vs Magic may actually be a better analogy. Very little difference in level of play if any, Magic just had better circumstances.

Doctor MJ wrote:2. Duncan & Curry have the continuity. Duncan having landed in the absolutely perfect situation in Year 1, Curry in Year 6. By contrast, Garnett & Paul started in less than ideal situations with Garnett stuck for 12 years and Paul for 6.

Doc,

Am I reading this right? You have Curry in the perfect spot, but not until year 6? And then Paul stuck for 6 years. I realize Curry then stayed and Paul moved around and so maybe all you are saying is it took Curry a minute, but he finally got the right situation whereas Paul never did?

Just trying to get some clarity as I'm a little confused.

I would also disagree that Steve Kerr was the secret sauce, but we've had that particular argument enough and no need to rehash it.

I'd also disagree Duncan landed in the perfect spot as much as he ultimately made it the perfect spot, but I know I'm alone on that island so won't harp on that either. Clearly he landed in a better spot than KG which is the relevant factor to what you are saying.

Texas Chuck wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:2. Duncan & Curry have the continuity. Duncan having landed in the absolutely perfect situation in Year 1, Curry in Year 6. By contrast, Garnett & Paul started in less than ideal situations with Garnett stuck for 12 years and Paul for 6.

Doc,

Am I reading this right? You have Curry in the perfect spot, but not until year 6? And then Paul stuck for 6 years. I realize Curry then stayed and Paul moved around and so maybe all you are saying is it took Curry a minute, but he finally got the right situation whereas Paul never did?

Just trying to get some clarity as I'm a little confused.

I would also disagree that Steve Kerr was the secret sauce, but we've had that particular argument enough and no need to rehash it.

I'd also disagree Duncan landed in the perfect spot as much as he ultimately made it the perfect spot, but I know I'm alone on that island so won't harp on that either. Clearly he landed in a better spot than KG which is the relevant factor to what you are saying.

To elaborate a bit more, it gets even worse for Curry than that.

Because people didn't understand his potential he spent 3 years in Davidson rather than being a one & done guy.
Then he spent 2 years on a team that thought Monta Ellis was their offensive star.
Then he spent a year disrupted with injury.
Then he spent 2 years under a really limited offensive coach who should not ever get hired again.

So it's not until Year 6 of his NBA career, and Year 9 out of high school, that Curry was in a situation with a really smart coach with a great supporting cast around him being well-utilized. All of that wasted time hurts his capacity for career accomplishment.

Re: Paul never got in the right situation. I mean, the reality is that I think Paul was properly built around largely from day 1, was in a pretty great situation circa '07-08, and then again in a great situation when he joined the Clippers, and then again on the Rockets, and then again on the Suns. It's almost Shaq-like in the way he kept moving to new teams that had serious talent to play with, I don't think it really makes sense to talk about Paul as someone who has had it particularly rough in general. I think he's achieved about what you should expect him to achieve. In some universes more, sure, but in others, certainly less.

But I'll certainly concede that during his last few years in NO with the ownership situation there what it is, it wasn't ideal.

Re: Kerr secret sauce. Well we can debate just how special Kerr is - I think he is pretty special - but what's undeniable is that Jackson was a very limited coach before that. I've been pretty vocal whenever Jackson's name has come up as a coaching candidate since that no one should hire him, and while others don't feel as strongly as I do, I don't think it's hard to see why we're so low on him. Whether or not Kerr's motion offense deserves as much credit as I tend to give it for unlocking stuff on that team, there's no denying that having other coaches with more innovative capacity than Jackson would have been nice given Curry's unprecedented skillset.

I don't think Paul played on nearly as bad teams as Garnett, so it's not a perfect comparison. Strictly in terms of "rings vs no rings", yeah, these two are similar.

falcolombardi wrote:Garnett was a bit younger than duncan, had comparable impact metrics of any kind and an approach generally less liked (garnett for not being a traditional post up big, paul for not beint agresssive enough im his passing) by the dogmas of its time

garnett and paul had serious injury issues and won very little in their primes despite impressove individual stats or impact numbers

curry and duncan were the centerpieces in really talented teams with other stars (including a impact metrics superstar in ginobili/draymond who got little mainstream recognition as such) that won a lot of rings and had strong continuity

it seems like a lot od the pro/against paul and garnett arguments are fairly similar

i an correct here?

It's a good comp. No comp is ever perfectly like-for-like... but I can't think of a better one TBH.

Doctor MJ wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:2. Duncan & Curry have the continuity. Duncan having landed in the absolutely perfect situation in Year 1, Curry in Year 6. By contrast, Garnett & Paul started in less than ideal situations with Garnett stuck for 12 years and Paul for 6.

Doc,

Am I reading this right? You have Curry in the perfect spot, but not until year 6? And then Paul stuck for 6 years. I realize Curry then stayed and Paul moved around and so maybe all you are saying is it took Curry a minute, but he finally got the right situation whereas Paul never did?

Just trying to get some clarity as I'm a little confused.

I would also disagree that Steve Kerr was the secret sauce, but we've had that particular argument enough and no need to rehash it.

I'd also disagree Duncan landed in the perfect spot as much as he ultimately made it the perfect spot, but I know I'm alone on that island so won't harp on that either. Clearly he landed in a better spot than KG which is the relevant factor to what you are saying.

To elaborate a bit more, it gets even worse for Curry than that.

Because people didn't understand his potential he spent 3 years in Davidson rather than being a one & done guy.
Then he spent 2 years on a team that thought Monta Ellis was their offensive star.
Then he spent a year disrupted with injury.
Then he spent 2 years under a really limited offensive coach who should not ever get hired again.

So it's not until Year 6 of his NBA career, and Year 9 out of high school, that Curry was in a situation with a really smart coach with a great supporting cast around him being well-utilized. All of that wasted time hurts his capacity for career accomplishment.

Re: Paul never got in the right situation. I mean, the reality is that I think Paul was properly built around largely from day 1, was in a pretty great situation circa '07-08, and then again in a great situation when he joined the Clippers, and then again on the Rockets, and then again on the Suns. It's almost Shaq-like in the way he kept moving to new teams that had serious talent to play with, I don't think it really makes sense to talk about Paul as someone who has had it particularly rough in general. I think he's achieved about what you should expect him to achieve. In some universes more, sure, but in others, certainly less.

But I'll certainly concede that during his last few years in NO with the ownership situation there what it is, it wasn't ideal.

Re: Kerr secret sauce. Well we can debate just how special Kerr is - I think he is pretty special - but what's undeniable is that Jackson was a very limited coach before that. I've been pretty vocal whenever Jackson's name has come up as a coaching candidate since that no one should hire him, and while others don't feel as strongly as I do, I don't think it's hard to see why we're so low on him. Whether or not Kerr's motion offense deserves as much credit as I tend to give it for unlocking stuff on that team, there's no denying that having other coaches with more innovative capacity than Jackson would have been nice given Curry's unprecedented skillset.

I agree with you here that comparing their situations, there aren't many similarities here.

Duncan was in very good situation since the beginning (though, overstated by a lot) and he only had to wait a few years of drought before Parker and Manu becoming great players (he also won one ring during that period).

Garnett had horrible situation since the first day and he had to wait more than a decade to get a team properly built around him.

Curry wasn't in great situation for the first 4 years, but Green/Thompson improvement along with coaching shift changed everything. Since then, he's been in amazing situation.

Paul was never in horrible situation (maybe except the last moments in NO), so he's not comparable to Garnett here.

That being said, I think you shouldn't equate Curry's situation after Kerr arrival to anything Paul faced probably until he got to Houston. CP3 didn't have "great" situation in LA. He had solid talent around him but Clippers were full of exploitable weaknesses. This is not the type of team you are expected to lead to the title.

Doctor MJ wrote:Re: Kerr secret sauce. Well we can debate just how special Kerr is - I think he is pretty special - but what's undeniable is that Jackson was a very limited coach before that. I've been pretty vocal whenever Jackson's name has come up as a coaching candidate since that no one should hire him, and while others don't feel as strongly as I do, I don't think it's hard to see why we're so low on him. Whether or not Kerr's motion offense deserves as much credit as I tend to give it for unlocking stuff on that team, there's no denying that having other coaches with more innovative capacity than Jackson would have been nice given Curry's unprecedented skillset.

Again, avoiding Kerr.

But Avery Johnson was by all accounts a bad basketball coach, particularly offensively, and a guy who didn't listen. And he failed his way out of the NBA, and now out of fairly low level college basketball as a result.

And the Mavs had their best 3 year stretch when he was the head coach including a trip to the Finals and a 67 win team(after starting that year 0-4 no less, so played 78 games at an over 70 win pace).

We've seen other very limited coaches still be very successful--including Mark Jackson in GSW being pretty successful. What changed GSW was the emergence of Draymond. And lest we credit Kerr too much for seeing that, he got his chance when Kerr's own first choice David Lee got injured.

As to the rest on Curry, sorry but a guy whose dad played a long time in the league wasn't going to get overlooked unless he simply hadn't shown enough to be more highly recruited. Instead of using that as some sort of hindrance against Curry, we need to recognize he was a late bloomer. Though not that late as he was still a high draft pick. And yes the Warriors thought highly of Monta, but its not like Curry wasn't getting lots of minutes or touches himself because he was.

I notice you do the same thing with Nash. Where you have suggested many times that he was outplaying Kidd his first two years in Phoenix and then that Don Nelson of all people who traded 2 firsts for Nash, gave him a big contract extension before he played game 1 in Dallas, and immediately gave him the ball didn't know how to use him and so he was this superstar all along, just nobody knew it.

Sometimes its okay to just realize some guys take longer, you know?

eminence wrote:I would not say Garnett had injury issues comparable to CP3, but overall I can see the parallels.

There are a couple of differences. Like Eminence, I don't see nearly the injury relationship. Garnett was extremely durable, moreso than Duncan until 2009. Curry/Duncan had for their generation the best management. Paul's was mediocre, some yrs some not. KG's was historically bad, then in Boston he had an excellent cast around him up until his decline.

But the larger relationship is quite correct. In both cases one players is in the public eye held up a lot higher than their contemporary. While there are a lot of reasons, team success is a huge factor. A passionate minority makes a very credible case that actually they were quite similar or in fact the guy regarded as inferior was better.

The two camps don't overlap as the reasons differ. There are plenty of Curry/KG fans and plenty of Duncan/Paul backers.

Doctor MJ wrote:
4. Playoff success aside, worth noting it's Garnett & Curry who were on the most dominant regular season teams at their peak and it's Duncan & Paul who had their best regular season teams and arguably best post-season teams very late in their career after they stopped being serious MVP candidates. (You might say something similar about KG, but he was on pace for the MVP in '07-08 until the injury.)

Was it really a case that Duncan's peak team occurred post-peak as you allege or is the case that years in his prime he had the potential for ATG team he came down with a couple of significant injuries?

I'm very much think it was the later. The 2005 Spurs were 50-15 with a 10.24 MOV until Duncan suffered his devasting ankle injury which crippled him for the remainder of 2005. The 2005 Spurs still won a title with Duncan out their limping like he did in the mid-teens.

Prior to his injury he was very much headed for a third MVP and if his play even remotely resembled the RS, and he was by an large a fine playoff performer, that team's PS MOV goes up significantly and their RS MOV even with the Duncan injury matches 2014 stride for stride.

70sFan wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
Doc,

Am I reading this right? You have Curry in the perfect spot, but not until year 6? And then Paul stuck for 6 years. I realize Curry then stayed and Paul moved around and so maybe all you are saying is it took Curry a minute, but he finally got the right situation whereas Paul never did?

Just trying to get some clarity as I'm a little confused.

I would also disagree that Steve Kerr was the secret sauce, but we've had that particular argument enough and no need to rehash it.

I'd also disagree Duncan landed in the perfect spot as much as he ultimately made it the perfect spot, but I know I'm alone on that island so won't harp on that either. Clearly he landed in a better spot than KG which is the relevant factor to what you are saying.

To elaborate a bit more, it gets even worse for Curry than that.

Because people didn't understand his potential he spent 3 years in Davidson rather than being a one & done guy.
Then he spent 2 years on a team that thought Monta Ellis was their offensive star.
Then he spent a year disrupted with injury.
Then he spent 2 years under a really limited offensive coach who should not ever get hired again.

So it's not until Year 6 of his NBA career, and Year 9 out of high school, that Curry was in a situation with a really smart coach with a great supporting cast around him being well-utilized. All of that wasted time hurts his capacity for career accomplishment.

Re: Paul never got in the right situation. I mean, the reality is that I think Paul was properly built around largely from day 1, was in a pretty great situation circa '07-08, and then again in a great situation when he joined the Clippers, and then again on the Rockets, and then again on the Suns. It's almost Shaq-like in the way he kept moving to new teams that had serious talent to play with, I don't think it really makes sense to talk about Paul as someone who has had it particularly rough in general. I think he's achieved about what you should expect him to achieve. In some universes more, sure, but in others, certainly less.

But I'll certainly concede that during his last few years in NO with the ownership situation there what it is, it wasn't ideal.

Re: Kerr secret sauce. Well we can debate just how special Kerr is - I think he is pretty special - but what's undeniable is that Jackson was a very limited coach before that. I've been pretty vocal whenever Jackson's name has come up as a coaching candidate since that no one should hire him, and while others don't feel as strongly as I do, I don't think it's hard to see why we're so low on him. Whether or not Kerr's motion offense deserves as much credit as I tend to give it for unlocking stuff on that team, there's no denying that having other coaches with more innovative capacity than Jackson would have been nice given Curry's unprecedented skillset.

I agree with you here that comparing their situations, there aren't many similarities here.

Duncan was in very good situation since the beginning (though, overstated by a lot) and he only had to wait a few years of drought before Parker and Manu becoming great players (he also won one ring during that period).

Garnett had horrible situation since the first day and he had to wait more than a decade to get a team properly built around him.

Curry wasn't in great situation for the first 4 years, but Green/Thompson improvement along with coaching shift changed everything. Since then, he's been in amazing situation.

Paul was never in horrible situation (maybe except the last moments in NO), so he's not comparable to Garnett here.

That being said, I think you shouldn't equate Curry's situation after Kerr arrival to anything Paul faced probably until he got to Houston. CP3 didn't have "great" situation in LA. He had solid talent around him but Clippers were full of exploitable weaknesses. This is not the type of team you are expected to lead to the title.

It was certainly the type of team you are expected to lead to many playoff series victories at least.

In '12-13 the Clippers had the 4th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '13-14 the Clippers had the 2nd best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '14-15 the Clippers had the 2nd best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '15-16 the Clippers had the 5th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '16-17 the Clippers had the 4th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.

In none of the 6 years that Paul played with the Clippers did the team play the Conference Champ, and in every year but one (Memphis '12-13, who played an injured team the next round and then got swept the round after), the team that beat them got beaten in the next round.

Also, in all 6 of those years, they lost to a different team, making clear that issue had nothing to do with any particular matchup.

This is what led to the scoreboard of Western Conference playoff series victories over that 6 year run to look like this:

Warriors 12
Spurs 11
Thunder 8
Clippers 3
Grizzlies 3
Rockets 3
Blazers 2

Folks may be thinking that it's not weird that the Warriors, Spurs & Thunder lead that list, and I don't either...but the fact that the era in retrospect looks like it had 3 contenders and then 4 other teams who were about on the same level is absolutely not how it was expected to go. Prior to '14-15 the Clippers were one of 3 teams seen as elite contenders (with Spurs & Thunder), and with the Warrior emergence the next year it became a 4 team race. For the Clippers to end up making this into a Big 3 that doesn't include them was a profound disappointment.

And yes, playoff injuries were a thing, but aside from the fact that thems the breaks, the Clippers dealt with injuries during the regular season too and still put up those SRSes.

I feel like people have managed to convince themselves that the Clippers never looked like contenders when the reality is that they were seen as very serious contenders up until they blew it again in '14-15, after which everyone on the club - Paul included - just looked like they expected to blow it when the going got tough.

I frankly find it pretty amazing that people are now looking back from the 2020s no longer seeing the Clippers as if they were underachievers and/or that if they were underachievers, it must be about everyone but Paul. To me it speaks to how a lingering taste late in a player's career can change perception of what came before. Paul looks so fundamentally solid now in the context he now plays in, he must have always been this, and thus it must just been those other guys who aren't any good any more...were never any good!

I imagine it won't be long before people forget that Kyle Lowry was one of the biggest playoff chokers in history before the Raptors turned the corner with Kawhi.

And of course, this isn't some new phenomenon. The tendency of guys/teams getting more bulletproof with age is something that's been commented on for forever - I always refer to the 1961 movie "The Hustler" that's basically about this sort of thing.

But anyway, there I go again. I should stop myself and exit before I end up in the same re-hashed debates with the same folks I've debated this on for years and years.

sp6r=underrated wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
4. Playoff success aside, worth noting it's Garnett & Curry who were on the most dominant regular season teams at their peak and it's Duncan & Paul who had their best regular season teams and arguably best post-season teams very late in their career after they stopped being serious MVP candidates. (You might say something similar about KG, but he was on pace for the MVP in '07-08 until the injury.)

Was it really a case that Duncan's peak team occurred post-peak as you allege or is the case that years in his prime he had the potential for ATG team he came down with a couple of significant injuries?

I'm very much think it was the later. The 2005 Spurs were 50-15 with a 10.24 MOV until Duncan suffered his devasting ankle injury which crippled him for the remainder of 2005. The 2005 Spurs still won a title with Duncan out their limping like he did in the mid-teens.

Prior to his injury he was very much headed for a third MVP and if his play even remotely resembled the RS, and he was by an large a fine playoff performer, that team's PS MOV goes up significantly and their RS MOV even with the Duncan injury matches 2014 stride for stride.

A good point. '04-05 was Ginobili's peak when he was the best player in the world in both major basketball tournaments (Olympics & NBA playoffs) in that 12 month period, so there was certainly the potential for that to be the best Spurs team. If Duncan had been healthy and the team adopted their 2010s strategy rather than treating Duncan as their primary scoring threat, they would have been quite the outlier.

Doctor MJ wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
To elaborate a bit more, it gets even worse for Curry than that.

Because people didn't understand his potential he spent 3 years in Davidson rather than being a one & done guy.
Then he spent 2 years on a team that thought Monta Ellis was their offensive star.
Then he spent a year disrupted with injury.
Then he spent 2 years under a really limited offensive coach who should not ever get hired again.

So it's not until Year 6 of his NBA career, and Year 9 out of high school, that Curry was in a situation with a really smart coach with a great supporting cast around him being well-utilized. All of that wasted time hurts his capacity for career accomplishment.

Re: Paul never got in the right situation. I mean, the reality is that I think Paul was properly built around largely from day 1, was in a pretty great situation circa '07-08, and then again in a great situation when he joined the Clippers, and then again on the Rockets, and then again on the Suns. It's almost Shaq-like in the way he kept moving to new teams that had serious talent to play with, I don't think it really makes sense to talk about Paul as someone who has had it particularly rough in general. I think he's achieved about what you should expect him to achieve. In some universes more, sure, but in others, certainly less.

But I'll certainly concede that during his last few years in NO with the ownership situation there what it is, it wasn't ideal.

Re: Kerr secret sauce. Well we can debate just how special Kerr is - I think he is pretty special - but what's undeniable is that Jackson was a very limited coach before that. I've been pretty vocal whenever Jackson's name has come up as a coaching candidate since that no one should hire him, and while others don't feel as strongly as I do, I don't think it's hard to see why we're so low on him. Whether or not Kerr's motion offense deserves as much credit as I tend to give it for unlocking stuff on that team, there's no denying that having other coaches with more innovative capacity than Jackson would have been nice given Curry's unprecedented skillset.

I agree with you here that comparing their situations, there aren't many similarities here.

Duncan was in very good situation since the beginning (though, overstated by a lot) and he only had to wait a few years of drought before Parker and Manu becoming great players (he also won one ring during that period).

Garnett had horrible situation since the first day and he had to wait more than a decade to get a team properly built around him.

Curry wasn't in great situation for the first 4 years, but Green/Thompson improvement along with coaching shift changed everything. Since then, he's been in amazing situation.

Paul was never in horrible situation (maybe except the last moments in NO), so he's not comparable to Garnett here.

That being said, I think you shouldn't equate Curry's situation after Kerr arrival to anything Paul faced probably until he got to Houston. CP3 didn't have "great" situation in LA. He had solid talent around him but Clippers were full of exploitable weaknesses. This is not the type of team you are expected to lead to the title.

It was certainly the type of team you are expected to lead to many playoff series victories at least.

In '12-13 the Clippers had the 4th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '13-14 the Clippers had the 2nd best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '14-15 the Clippers had the 2nd best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '15-16 the Clippers had the 5th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '16-17 the Clippers had the 4th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.

In none of the 6 years that Paul played with the Clippers did the team play the Conference Champ, and in every year but one (Memphis '12-13, who played an injured team the next round and then got swept the round after), the team that beat them got beaten in the next round.

Also, in all 6 of those years, they lost to a different team, making clear that issue had nothing to do with any particular matchup.

This is what led to the scoreboard of Western Conference playoff series victories over that 6 year run to look like this:

Warriors 12
Spurs 11
Thunder 8
Clippers 3
Grizzlies 3
Rockets 3
Blazers 2

Folks may be thinking that it's not weird that the Warriors, Spurs & Thunder lead that list, and I don't either...but the fact that the era in retrospect looks like it had 3 contenders and then 4 other teams who were about on the same level is absolutely not how it was expected to go. Prior to '14-15 the Clippers were one of 3 teams seen as elite contenders (with Spurs & Thunder), and with the Warrior emergence the next year it became a 4 team race. For the Clippers to end up making this into a Big 3 that doesn't include them was a profound disappointment.

And yes, playoff injuries were a thing, but aside from the fact that thems the breaks, the Clippers dealt with injuries during the regular season too and still put up those SRSes.

I feel like people have managed to convince themselves that the Clippers never looked like contenders when the reality is that they were seen as very serious contenders up until they blew it again in '14-15, after which everyone on the club - Paul included - just looked like they expected to blow it when the going got tough.

I frankly find it pretty amazing that people are now looking back from the 2020s no longer seeing the Clippers as if they were underachievers and/or that if they were underachievers, it must be about everyone but Paul. To me it speaks to how a lingering taste late in a player's career can change perception of what came before. Paul looks so fundamentally solid now in the context he now plays in, he must have always been this, and thus it must just been those other guys who aren't any good any more...were never any good!

I imagine it won't be long before people forget that Kyle Lowry was one of the biggest playoff chokers in history before the Raptors turned the corner with Kawhi.

And of course, this isn't some new phenomenon. The tendency of guys/teams getting more bulletproof with age is something that's been commented on for forever - I always refer to the 1961 movie "The Hustler" that's basically about this sort of thing.

But anyway, there I go again. I should stop myself and exit before I end up in the same re-hashed debates with the same folks I've debated this on for years and years.

the srs point feels like the criticism on 2009 lebron, he played fantastically against orlando and took a roster without another all star player to 66 wins and a nearly all time level srs

does that mean he should be criticized for losing to a srs underdog orlando just because he made the cavs overachieve in the regulsr season?

is at least a questionable logic, if chris paul plays fantastically in the playoffs, makes the offense fantastic amd has his team win the minutes he is on court and the clippers lose because have weak defenders or a thin bench, is it really somethingh to fault him for?

Doctor MJ wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
To elaborate a bit more, it gets even worse for Curry than that.

Because people didn't understand his potential he spent 3 years in Davidson rather than being a one & done guy.
Then he spent 2 years on a team that thought Monta Ellis was their offensive star.
Then he spent a year disrupted with injury.
Then he spent 2 years under a really limited offensive coach who should not ever get hired again.

So it's not until Year 6 of his NBA career, and Year 9 out of high school, that Curry was in a situation with a really smart coach with a great supporting cast around him being well-utilized. All of that wasted time hurts his capacity for career accomplishment.

Re: Paul never got in the right situation. I mean, the reality is that I think Paul was properly built around largely from day 1, was in a pretty great situation circa '07-08, and then again in a great situation when he joined the Clippers, and then again on the Rockets, and then again on the Suns. It's almost Shaq-like in the way he kept moving to new teams that had serious talent to play with, I don't think it really makes sense to talk about Paul as someone who has had it particularly rough in general. I think he's achieved about what you should expect him to achieve. In some universes more, sure, but in others, certainly less.

But I'll certainly concede that during his last few years in NO with the ownership situation there what it is, it wasn't ideal.

Re: Kerr secret sauce. Well we can debate just how special Kerr is - I think he is pretty special - but what's undeniable is that Jackson was a very limited coach before that. I've been pretty vocal whenever Jackson's name has come up as a coaching candidate since that no one should hire him, and while others don't feel as strongly as I do, I don't think it's hard to see why we're so low on him. Whether or not Kerr's motion offense deserves as much credit as I tend to give it for unlocking stuff on that team, there's no denying that having other coaches with more innovative capacity than Jackson would have been nice given Curry's unprecedented skillset.

I agree with you here that comparing their situations, there aren't many similarities here.

Duncan was in very good situation since the beginning (though, overstated by a lot) and he only had to wait a few years of drought before Parker and Manu becoming great players (he also won one ring during that period).

Garnett had horrible situation since the first day and he had to wait more than a decade to get a team properly built around him.

Curry wasn't in great situation for the first 4 years, but Green/Thompson improvement along with coaching shift changed everything. Since then, he's been in amazing situation.

Paul was never in horrible situation (maybe except the last moments in NO), so he's not comparable to Garnett here.

That being said, I think you shouldn't equate Curry's situation after Kerr arrival to anything Paul faced probably until he got to Houston. CP3 didn't have "great" situation in LA. He had solid talent around him but Clippers were full of exploitable weaknesses. This is not the type of team you are expected to lead to the title.

It was certainly the type of team you are expected to lead to many playoff series victories at least.

In '12-13 the Clippers had the 4th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '13-14 the Clippers had the 2nd best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '14-15 the Clippers had the 2nd best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '15-16 the Clippers had the 5th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '16-17 the Clippers had the 4th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.

In none of the 6 years that Paul played with the Clippers did the team play the Conference Champ, and in every year but one (Memphis '12-13, who played an injured team the next round and then got swept the round after), the team that beat them got beaten in the next round.

Also, in all 6 of those years, they lost to a different team, making clear that issue had nothing to do with any particular matchup.

This is what led to the scoreboard of Western Conference playoff series victories over that 6 year run to look like this:

Warriors 12
Spurs 11
Thunder 8
Clippers 3
Grizzlies 3
Rockets 3
Blazers 2

Folks may be thinking that it's not weird that the Warriors, Spurs & Thunder lead that list, and I don't either...but the fact that the era in retrospect looks like it had 3 contenders and then 4 other teams who were about on the same level is absolutely not how it was expected to go. Prior to '14-15 the Clippers were one of 3 teams seen as elite contenders (with Spurs & Thunder), and with the Warrior emergence the next year it became a 4 team race. For the Clippers to end up making this into a Big 3 that doesn't include them was a profound disappointment.

And yes, playoff injuries were a thing, but aside from the fact that thems the breaks, the Clippers dealt with injuries during the regular season too and still put up those SRSes.

I feel like people have managed to convince themselves that the Clippers never looked like contenders when the reality is that they were seen as very serious contenders up until they blew it again in '14-15, after which everyone on the club - Paul included - just looked like they expected to blow it when the going got tough.

I frankly find it pretty amazing that people are now looking back from the 2020s no longer seeing the Clippers as if they were underachievers and/or that if they were underachievers, it must be about everyone but Paul. To me it speaks to how a lingering taste late in a player's career can change perception of what came before. Paul looks so fundamentally solid now in the context he now plays in, he must have always been this, and thus it must just been those other guys who aren't any good any more...were never any good!

I imagine it won't be long before people forget that Kyle Lowry was one of the biggest playoff chokers in history before the Raptors turned the corner with Kawhi.

And of course, this isn't some new phenomenon. The tendency of guys/teams getting more bulletproof with age is something that's been commented on for forever - I always refer to the 1961 movie "The Hustler" that's basically about this sort of thing.

But anyway, there I go again. I should stop myself and exit before I end up in the same re-hashed debates with the same folks I've debated this on for years and years.

The interesting discussion is whether Clippers underperformed in playoffs or overachieved in RS. That's always the problem with evaluating who should beat who.

I'll say one thing - Clippers certianly didn't have the roster to become dynasty (or even to compete for titles). Paul and Blake is a good one-two punch, but other than that the team was full of overrated players and had shallow bench.

70sFan wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

70sFan wrote:I agree with you here that comparing their situations, there aren't many similarities here.

Duncan was in very good situation since the beginning (though, overstated by a lot) and he only had to wait a few years of drought before Parker and Manu becoming great players (he also won one ring during that period).

Garnett had horrible situation since the first day and he had to wait more than a decade to get a team properly built around him.

Curry wasn't in great situation for the first 4 years, but Green/Thompson improvement along with coaching shift changed everything. Since then, he's been in amazing situation.

Paul was never in horrible situation (maybe except the last moments in NO), so he's not comparable to Garnett here.

That being said, I think you shouldn't equate Curry's situation after Kerr arrival to anything Paul faced probably until he got to Houston. CP3 didn't have "great" situation in LA. He had solid talent around him but Clippers were full of exploitable weaknesses. This is not the type of team you are expected to lead to the title.

It was certainly the type of team you are expected to lead to many playoff series victories at least.

In '12-13 the Clippers had the 4th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '13-14 the Clippers had the 2nd best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '14-15 the Clippers had the 2nd best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '15-16 the Clippers had the 5th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '16-17 the Clippers had the 4th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.

In none of the 6 years that Paul played with the Clippers did the team play the Conference Champ, and in every year but one (Memphis '12-13, who played an injured team the next round and then got swept the round after), the team that beat them got beaten in the next round.

Also, in all 6 of those years, they lost to a different team, making clear that issue had nothing to do with any particular matchup.

This is what led to the scoreboard of Western Conference playoff series victories over that 6 year run to look like this:

Warriors 12
Spurs 11
Thunder 8
Clippers 3
Grizzlies 3
Rockets 3
Blazers 2

Folks may be thinking that it's not weird that the Warriors, Spurs & Thunder lead that list, and I don't either...but the fact that the era in retrospect looks like it had 3 contenders and then 4 other teams who were about on the same level is absolutely not how it was expected to go. Prior to '14-15 the Clippers were one of 3 teams seen as elite contenders (with Spurs & Thunder), and with the Warrior emergence the next year it became a 4 team race. For the Clippers to end up making this into a Big 3 that doesn't include them was a profound disappointment.

And yes, playoff injuries were a thing, but aside from the fact that thems the breaks, the Clippers dealt with injuries during the regular season too and still put up those SRSes.

I feel like people have managed to convince themselves that the Clippers never looked like contenders when the reality is that they were seen as very serious contenders up until they blew it again in '14-15, after which everyone on the club - Paul included - just looked like they expected to blow it when the going got tough.

I frankly find it pretty amazing that people are now looking back from the 2020s no longer seeing the Clippers as if they were underachievers and/or that if they were underachievers, it must be about everyone but Paul. To me it speaks to how a lingering taste late in a player's career can change perception of what came before. Paul looks so fundamentally solid now in the context he now plays in, he must have always been this, and thus it must just been those other guys who aren't any good any more...were never any good!

I imagine it won't be long before people forget that Kyle Lowry was one of the biggest playoff chokers in history before the Raptors turned the corner with Kawhi.

And of course, this isn't some new phenomenon. The tendency of guys/teams getting more bulletproof with age is something that's been commented on for forever - I always refer to the 1961 movie "The Hustler" that's basically about this sort of thing.

But anyway, there I go again. I should stop myself and exit before I end up in the same re-hashed debates with the same folks I've debated this on for years and years.

The interesting discussion is whether Clippers underperformed in playoffs or overachieved in RS. That's always the problem with evaluating who should beat who.

I'll say one thing - Clippers certianly didn't have the roster to become dynasty (or even to compete for titles). Paul and Blake is a good one-two punch, but other than that the team was full of overrated players and had shallow bench.

somethingh to note is also that

2014 thunder was better than their regular season record as westbrook missed most of the year and were arguably the second best team in the league and coming of being the best srs team by far in 2013

2015 clippers beat a spurs team that if memory serves right had a better regular season than them and was coming from a historical year

2016 was the year when both blake and cp3 if am not mistaken fought injuries

2017 was another hurt year for blake (someone correct me if i am wrong please, i am going off memory here)



and by the same token, curry lost to a team with WAY lower srs in 2016 and barely got past another team eith a WAY lower srs in thunder (outscored that series actually) but we dont hold that against warriors cause is clear those teams were much better than their records

Doctor MJ wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
4. Playoff success aside, worth noting it's Garnett & Curry who were on the most dominant regular season teams at their peak and it's Duncan & Paul who had their best regular season teams and arguably best post-season teams very late in their career after they stopped being serious MVP candidates. (You might say something similar about KG, but he was on pace for the MVP in '07-08 until the injury.)

Was it really a case that Duncan's peak team occurred post-peak as you allege or is the case that years in his prime he had the potential for ATG team he came down with a couple of significant injuries?

I'm very much think it was the later. The 2005 Spurs were 50-15 with a 10.24 MOV until Duncan suffered his devasting ankle injury which crippled him for the remainder of 2005. The 2005 Spurs still won a title with Duncan out their limping like he did in the mid-teens.

Prior to his injury he was very much headed for a third MVP and if his play even remotely resembled the RS, and he was by an large a fine playoff performer, that team's PS MOV goes up significantly and their RS MOV even with the Duncan injury matches 2014 stride for stride.

A good point. '04-05 was Ginobili's peak when he was the best player in the world in both major basketball tournaments (Olympics & NBA playoffs) in that 12 month period, so there was certainly the potential for that to be the best Spurs team. If Duncan had been healthy and the team adopted their 2010s strategy rather than treating Duncan as their primary scoring threat, they would have been quite the outlier.

Or in the alternative, the Spurs had the two best players in the world in 2005, both of whom reached a level your boy Nash could only dream of

falcolombardi wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

70sFan wrote:I agree with you here that comparing their situations, there aren't many similarities here.

Duncan was in very good situation since the beginning (though, overstated by a lot) and he only had to wait a few years of drought before Parker and Manu becoming great players (he also won one ring during that period).

Garnett had horrible situation since the first day and he had to wait more than a decade to get a team properly built around him.

Curry wasn't in great situation for the first 4 years, but Green/Thompson improvement along with coaching shift changed everything. Since then, he's been in amazing situation.

Paul was never in horrible situation (maybe except the last moments in NO), so he's not comparable to Garnett here.

That being said, I think you shouldn't equate Curry's situation after Kerr arrival to anything Paul faced probably until he got to Houston. CP3 didn't have "great" situation in LA. He had solid talent around him but Clippers were full of exploitable weaknesses. This is not the type of team you are expected to lead to the title.

It was certainly the type of team you are expected to lead to many playoff series victories at least.

In '12-13 the Clippers had the 4th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '13-14 the Clippers had the 2nd best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '14-15 the Clippers had the 2nd best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '15-16 the Clippers had the 5th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.
In '16-17 the Clippers had the 4th best SRS in the league, and lost to a team with a worse one.

In none of the 6 years that Paul played with the Clippers did the team play the Conference Champ, and in every year but one (Memphis '12-13, who played an injured team the next round and then got swept the round after), the team that beat them got beaten in the next round.

Also, in all 6 of those years, they lost to a different team, making clear that issue had nothing to do with any particular matchup.

This is what led to the scoreboard of Western Conference playoff series victories over that 6 year run to look like this:

Warriors 12
Spurs 11
Thunder 8
Clippers 3
Grizzlies 3
Rockets 3
Blazers 2

Folks may be thinking that it's not weird that the Warriors, Spurs & Thunder lead that list, and I don't either...but the fact that the era in retrospect looks like it had 3 contenders and then 4 other teams who were about on the same level is absolutely not how it was expected to go. Prior to '14-15 the Clippers were one of 3 teams seen as elite contenders (with Spurs & Thunder), and with the Warrior emergence the next year it became a 4 team race. For the Clippers to end up making this into a Big 3 that doesn't include them was a profound disappointment.

And yes, playoff injuries were a thing, but aside from the fact that thems the breaks, the Clippers dealt with injuries during the regular season too and still put up those SRSes.

I feel like people have managed to convince themselves that the Clippers never looked like contenders when the reality is that they were seen as very serious contenders up until they blew it again in '14-15, after which everyone on the club - Paul included - just looked like they expected to blow it when the going got tough.

I frankly find it pretty amazing that people are now looking back from the 2020s no longer seeing the Clippers as if they were underachievers and/or that if they were underachievers, it must be about everyone but Paul. To me it speaks to how a lingering taste late in a player's career can change perception of what came before. Paul looks so fundamentally solid now in the context he now plays in, he must have always been this, and thus it must just been those other guys who aren't any good any more...were never any good!

I imagine it won't be long before people forget that Kyle Lowry was one of the biggest playoff chokers in history before the Raptors turned the corner with Kawhi.

And of course, this isn't some new phenomenon. The tendency of guys/teams getting more bulletproof with age is something that's been commented on for forever - I always refer to the 1961 movie "The Hustler" that's basically about this sort of thing.

But anyway, there I go again. I should stop myself and exit before I end up in the same re-hashed debates with the same folks I've debated this on for years and years.

the srs point feels like the criticism on 2009 lebron, he played fantastically against orlando and took a roster without another all star player to 66 wins and a nearly all time level srs

does that mean he should be criticized for losing to a srs underdog orlando just because he made the cavs overachieve in the regulsr season?

is at least a questionable logic

Ah, to be clear:

I'm not saying that the only conceivable explanation for why a team might perform worse in the playoffs compared to the regular season is something damning about a star player, I'm just emphasizing the consistency and scale of the underperformance because I don't think people realize it and I think it's easy to understand when it's presented like this.

I also don't remember if I was talking to you or someone else, but I recently had the experience of someone telling me that the Clippers had comparable playoff success to Nash's Suns, and that has everything to do with why I think it's important that people see this stuff.

I'm getting the impression people have rounded up Paul's prior playoff performances as "just short of the chip" - when they were never even close - while similarly rounding down what reasonable expectations were for the team. In reality, this was a team that was always seen as a very serious title contender that had the playoff success of a team that was nowhere near a contender, and quite frankly, I can't remember a time where this wasn't held against the players in question.

It is certainly up to each person to look into it themselves to draw their own conclusions, but yeah, explanations are necessary when you see a team do this - again, 5 seasons in a row of SRS upsets, have you ever seen that before? Honestly I've never gone through and made a list, but it's pretty remarkable. The Bird Celtics were known for these sort of issues and I don't believe they experienced it as many times over his 9 year prime as the Paul Clippers did in their shorter run.

With the Clippers this was an "Every year, this is how they ended up ending their season" issue, and with underachievement that remarkable, I think there's plenty of responsibility to go around.

But let's mention a few other things here:

1. LeBron lost to elite teams that themselves got to the finals that year, and showed across multiple years in that time frame they were capable of winning a title. The Clippers lost to teams that almost always lost immediately afterward, and in the one exception, advanced one step further due to an opponent's injury before getting swept in the next round. The Kerr Warriors never even got the chance to beat them.

2. LeBron's best teammates was Mo Williams, Chris Paul had Blake Griffin who I think is now getting astonishingly disrespected.

3. LeBron's teams didn't lose via bizarre defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory the way the Clippers did repeatedly.

4. The Clippers got some of those elite SRSes despite noteworthy regular season injuries which should make them even better in the playoffs once they got healthy. Consider that in '13-14 the Clippers had a higher SRS than Thunder on the back of Blake Griffin having the highest raw +/- in the entire league during the regular season (just above Curry) with Paul missing a quarter of the season. There was good reason to think that the Clippers with a healthy Paul should be the better team, and you'd hope at the very least they'd be able to "hold serve" - if they were going to lose by HCA - and instead they lost 4-2 based on how they lost those last two games in the 4th quarter which many people point to as the moment the milk soured in that locker room.

5. Remember also the even bigger choke the next year against a Rocket team that no one ever considered a serious title threat.

None of that proves definitively anything about where Paul should specifically be ranked, but the idea that anyone in 2022 is dismissing this stuff as if it wasn't filled with repeated disappointments is to me just people not really remembering how things were at the time...even if they were paying attention back then. The present sometimes tricks us into forgetting things we once knew.