tone wone wrote:AEnigma wrote:Regarding Paul, I think his regular season “impact” is moderately overstated (not that anyone already voting for him or intending to vote for him in the next couple of ballots is likely to agree), and I see him as an even more extreme Embiid case in the postseason (again, not that his current voting bloc seems likely to care much). Worth repeating that Embiid’s postseason “impact” is massive. He has all the plus/minus and on/off and LEBRON/BPM/PIPM/AuPM/whatever arguments people love to use for Chris Paul, and he has managed to be more reliably healthy!
Embiid is essentially Chris' heir when it comes to untimely postseason injuries. That sad mercy kill against Boston in 2020 was the only he started and finished healthy.
Which is why I have concerns about his ability to handle longer runs — as I do with Paul — but unhealthy Embiid still makes it work in so many of the ways Paul supporters seem to care about.
In 2021 Paul missed games on the way to his first ever Finals run, but Kawhi was gone too and his team was good enough to win those games (to Paul’s credit, those games were home games in large part because of his regular season). Then in the Finals, Paul struggled to overcome a hand injury while the much maligned Devin Booker was the one more consistently leading the team in plus/minus and either winning his minutes or playing to a draw. We all know 2018. 2016 he missed the later games of the series. 2015 he missed two games against the Rockets, one of which the Rockets narrowly won, and then like the rest of the team had that infamous Game 6 fourth quarter meltdown at home. 2009 he was severely hampered by injury.
Yeah, Paul has awful durability. Its why he's top 25 and not top 15.
His 2014 and 2008 seasons had absolutely zero shot at top 15, nor should they have. It is not all health.
And although this was not a consequence of health, probably worth noting that in his best chance at a title with the Clippers he was comfortably outplayed by pre-peak Russell Westbrook and cost his team a game with an all-time stupid turnover.
Chris was great in that series too. 22/12 61ts% 58efg%, more steals(15) than to's(14).
He had nice individual numbers, yeah. The team’s offence also maintained reasonably well as a raw rating, in part because they took care of the ball. By those measures, Paul did his job on that end, nothing more you can ask, teammates let him down as always.
… but why do the offensive performances of these teammates of this ball-controlling point guard so often seem to fade in the postseason? Okay, Blake and Jamal do pretty well with him out there; I think to some extent that is a matter of a.) Paul’s missed games increasing defensive focus, and b.) it generally being easier when defences have another good scorer to watch (Paul did not exactly thrive without those two either). The rest? Guys who ostensibly should see the most benefit from Paul? They are struggling. I am not going to say this is absolutely definitive; this is noisy and a smaller sample, and it is not like Nash, my gold standard, guarantees everyone he plays with does better too… but it does look a
lot better for Nash, and that bears out in those maligned offensive ratings.
Okay, most people are not saying Paul is better on offence than Nash, but that is where we get to those defensive lapses you mentioned. I am not sure how much worse defensively Nash would have made the Clippers in 2014 against the Thunder, but I kind-of feel like he would make up for it on offence, or at least would make up for it in a way that leads to wins. Also often not the biggest fan of Paul’s fourth quarters! Even when he scores efficiently enough, because it is hard to win close games on the back of Paul alone making those midrange shots he loves. Again, this is narrative and anecdotal, but when Nash is pressed and trying to hold onto a lead or cut a lead, I see him trying to keep everyone involved. Did not always work out. I mean, obviously. But Nash was not one to start freezing out someone who had disappointed him or just passively take what the defences willingly gives him, because he was never treating it as a math play.
Eight series lost with a lead, six lost with a two-game lead, seven lost as the higher seed… I am not saying he is an outright “choker” in the postseason when healthy, and there is justifiable context behind most and arguably all of those losses, but if he gets all this credit for how good he can look in the regular season, then either we need to think about whether that quality is exaggerated, or we need to consider why that is not carrying over to the postseason and why teams are routinely winning four straight or four of five against him. If it is a flaw in his leadership or his approach or his adaptability, then maybe there is at least some element of truth to those pundits who scoff at the idea he could ever be trusted to captain a team to a championship.
But what is it then? He's not a regular season tiger-postseason kitty. There's no David Robinson fall-off here. His offense doesnt melt in the face of playoff defense. Hell, he even manages to up his scoring most of the time. Is it his pace? Is he too cautious with his passing?
All I see is a tiny pg with the worlds worst hamstrings. Those are his crippling flaws. The reasons he could never captain a championship team.
Oh somehow I lost my response at this part.
Well, I alluded to it above: yeah, to an extent I think it is his passing, or at least his passing as related to his approach/leadership/adaptability. I think he goes for safe plays too often and lacks the vision, the willingness, or maybe even the style to truly elevate his teammates the way I want out of that “traditional” point guard role. I doubt any of you are voting for him (or considering a vote for him) because those 23 points per 75 or whatever are just so outstanding. And to the point of adaptability, yes, I think both his offensive approach and his defence seem to become less effective over the course of a series. He does not have to be Lebron, or Magic… but going back to our beloved pundits class, it would be nice if he could be at least a little more like Isiah Thomas.
I say that not to prepare some future vote for Isiah, or to say Isiah would have won in Paul’s place, or to say Paul could not have won in Isiah’s place, but simply to highlight that maybe there is a kernel of validity to criticisms that Isiah was more equipped to lead his team on deep runs and was more capable of giving them the spark or drive they needed, and of course was never one to become overly conservative or committed to a specific approach. I have also seen the Aaron Rodgers comparison. Again, kind-of lazy and dumb… but this past playoff loss did feel like a pretty egregious case of refusing to take a chance on the types of plays they needed, and that is not the first time that criticism has appeared for him either.
Like I said, I do not expect anyone already supporting him to change their minds. But Paul is either the actual unluckiest player in postseason history… or he is the common thread of a lot of disappointments and team underperformances. Probably elements of both there, but 2018 is really the only instance where I thought pure bad luck was what cost him a chance at a title, and for as much as f4p has annoyed me with attributing that entire season to Harden, Harden was indeed the driver of that team.
