ImageImageImageImageImage

ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA

Moderators: og15, TrueLAfan

User avatar
QRich3
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 5,844
And1: 3,947
Joined: Apr 03, 2011
 

ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#1 » by QRich3 » Tue Nov 18, 2014 5:11 pm

Zach Lowe over at Grantland just did a very nice article on Chris Paul and the stupid narratives that swarm sports coverage, touching on what will be Paul's legacy and how it will be affected if we don't make the WCF this year. Great read and a balanced and informed point of view from him, as usual, as well as Jerry West chiming in on the subject:

Paul has made the playoffs six times; he has led the league in postseason player efficiency rating in three of those six trips. His career playoff PER is 25.0. Here is the list of players who have logged at least 1,000 postseason minutes and exceeded that number: Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Shaquille O’Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, George Mikan. That’s the list.

But PER is a surface stat that scans a player’s overall performance. No evaluation would end there. Paul’s best pre–Los Angeles team was the 2008 Hornets, a 56-win team that lost at home in Game 7 to the Spurs in the second round. That was the only close game of the series, and Paul put up 18 points, 14 assists, and eight rebounds before fouling out in the last seconds. He missed a layup with 45 seconds left that would have pulled the Hornets within three, but he also leaped between Ginobili and Tony Parker for an offensive rebound with about 1:30 left that he tipped right to Jannero Pargo for a triple that kept New Orleans alive.

Paul’s first-round series that season was a snoozer, but the final game was close, and Paul dispatched Dallas with a 24-15-11 triple-double that included an 11-point fourth quarter on 5-of-7 shooting.

He was hurt in the middle of the Denver series the next season, and when he got hurt again in 2010, the Hornets missed the playoffs. The next season, Paul averaged 22 points and 11.5 assists, hitting nearly 55 percent from the floor, in dragging a hopelessly undermanned Hornets team into a surprisingly competitive six-game series against the defending champion Lakers.

Injuries to Paul and his most important teammates have dotted his playoff career. Blake Griffin could barely play in the final two games of the Clippers’ first-round loss against Memphis two years ago due to a severe ankle sprain. Paul averaged 32 points per game on 22-of-40 shooting over the last two games of that series, but the Clippers without Griffin didn’t have enough to compete.

That series might have been over earlier had Paul not gone berserk in crunch time of Game 2, sinking 3-of-4 in the last 2:30, including a buzzer-beater to win the game.

That performance gave Memphis fans some nauseating flashbacks to the previous season, 2011-12, when Paul’s late-game play bordered on the implausible. He almost single-handedly won Game 4 of that first-rounder in overtime, slicing through for a layup with 26 seconds left in regulation to break a tie, and then raining fire with a 4-of-5 run of jumpers and leaners to clinch the game in overtime.


Paul has generally done well in big moments. He has outshot almost every superstar in crunch time, and he’s a tidy 18-of-36 in the last five minutes2 of playoff games in which the score has been within five points. He’s missed some big shots, and he’s suffered his fair share of boners; his turnover rate has spiked badly in several playoff seasons.

Guess what. This is exactly what you’d expect from a little guy who has supervised just about every important offensive possession for his team since the day he walked into the league. Paul has more hits than misses, and that’s rare for crunch time, when shooting percentages drop and even stars wilt under increased defensive attention.

What will it mean if the Clippers bow out early again this year? How will it affect Paul’s legacy?


Paul is objectively one of the 10 greatest point guards ever, a rare combination of historic passing, very good shooting, slicing attacks toward the rim, and elite defense at his position. He has no weaknesses, save perhaps his height, which can make it hard for him at times to see over the defenses and throw the cross-court passes that LeBron tosses with such ease.

The game provides truth. When you have truth, you don’t need narratives — including the one that says a player is somehow flawed until he wins a championship. Death to RINGZ.


http://grantland.com/the-triangle/death-to-ringz-chris-paul-and-the-nbas-broken-narrative-of-success/
User avatar
Quake Griffin
RealGM
Posts: 15,460
And1: 4,676
Joined: Jul 06, 2012
     

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#2 » by Quake Griffin » Tue Nov 18, 2014 5:36 pm

What people don't understand is that it's not whether he has a good supporting cast or team around him. It's whether he has THEE supporting cast or team around him. In an alternate universe, where we're just talking about talented teammates, yes we can go on and on about the talent on this roster. In today's western conference with SAS and OKC, having talent around you doesnt mean much.

also....
the dynamic of a team with a 6'0" PG as it's leader is much different that a 6'6"-6'9" wing.
objectively speaking....if you replace Paul with the league average PG and put LBJ at SF on this Clippers team, we probably do have enough of a supporting cast for LBJ to get it done:

if not for anything, LBJ helps solve our main weaknesses....rebounding and wing defense.

the dynamic is different with Paul and the deficiencies here in Clipper land aren't something he can just fix on cue by "having heart" or "balls" or "being "clutch"
“I’ve always felt that drafting is the life blood of any organization.” - Jerome Alan West.
User avatar
Quake Griffin
RealGM
Posts: 15,460
And1: 4,676
Joined: Jul 06, 2012
     

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#3 » by Quake Griffin » Tue Nov 18, 2014 5:38 pm

oh but no excuses for Game 5 last year....probably the worst night of my life (not really but kinda close).
he catches the ball and holds it....we win and have a chance to close.



i woke up the next morning and knew something was wrong.
im crawling out of my dismal swamp like...."whats wrong? why do i feel like ass? oh yea...we blew game 5...****"
“I’ve always felt that drafting is the life blood of any organization.” - Jerome Alan West.
User avatar
MartinToVaught
RealGM
Posts: 15,707
And1: 17,778
Joined: Oct 19, 2014
     

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#4 » by MartinToVaught » Tue Nov 18, 2014 6:35 pm

That PER looks really good if you ignore the small sample size, considering he's never been past the second round. The reality is, a small point guard dominating the ball is not a recipe for playoff success. The only example in recent memory is Isiah, and even then, Joe Dumars' defense (especially on Jordan) and scoring was arguably the lynchpin of the Pistons' title runs, and Dumars was the Finals MVP in '89. If you include Finals losers, then there's Iverson, who played in an abysmal Eastern Conference and got steamrolled in the Finals. That's it.

CP3 obviously can't help his size, but if he wants to have playoff success, he needs to accept a much smaller role and a much smaller salary so that we can get the two-way wings we need. With CP3 dominating the ball and our cap space, there's always going to be a second-round ceiling hanging over this team.
Image
Wammy Giveaway
Veteran
Posts: 2,551
And1: 1,154
Joined: Jul 30, 2013

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#5 » by Wammy Giveaway » Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:19 pm

And that is why, Martin, prior to the start of the regular season, when Blake Griffin got involved in the Las Vegas kerfuffle that he now has to deal with in court, there was a rumor of the Clippers possibly trading for Rajon Rondo. Paul would become the shooting guard with Rondo taking his place at the point.

Rajon Rondo Rumor Source: http://www.mstarz.com/articles/40019/20 ... season.htm

Back to the topic, point guards are known mostly for passing, so they should be averaging double-digit assists. However, it's been historically proven (care of Basketball-Reference) that players who average double-digit assists per game in the playoffs are 1-34 in winning a championship. The only guy to ever win a title with a double-digit assist count with an NBA Finals MVP to prove it: Magic Johnson in the 1986-87 season.

Reference: http://bkref.com/tiny/OGbZx

Paul may have to sacrifice his assist stats if he wants the title.
LACtdom
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,556
And1: 341
Joined: Jun 05, 2013
Location: Australia
   

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#6 » by LACtdom » Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:50 pm

The reason why a 'big 3' does so well is that there is a much higher probability that if someone is having an off night, another star will be hot and it will all balance out. Because CP is a pass first point guard, we really only have 1 star on our team who scores. I can't remember the last time a team won a championship with only 1 star.
og15
Forum Mod - Clippers
Forum Mod - Clippers
Posts: 50,751
And1: 33,547
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
Location: NBA Fan
 

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#7 » by og15 » Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:31 pm

Wammy Giveaway wrote:And that is why, Martin, prior to the start of the regular season, when Blake Griffin got involved in the Las Vegas kerfuffle that he now has to deal with in court, there was a rumor of the Clippers possibly trading for Rajon Rondo. Paul would become the shooting guard with Rondo taking his place at the point.

Rajon Rondo Rumor Source: http://www.mstarz.com/articles/40019/20 ... season.htm

Back to the topic, point guards are known mostly for passing, so they should be averaging double-digit assists. However, it's been historically proven (care of Basketball-Reference) that players who average double-digit assists per game in the playoffs are 1-34 in winning a championship. The only guy to ever win a title with a double-digit assist count with an NBA Finals MVP to prove it: Magic Johnson in the 1986-87 season.

Reference: http://bkref.com/tiny/OGbZx

Paul may have to sacrifice his assist stats if he wants the title.

Sacrificing assists won't do anything, what is with all this shallow nonsense analysis? This is exactly what the article is arguing against.

How are you going to quote the most unreliable site possible on basketball news and think it means anything? Do you even know who the Clippers coach/GM is? Doc was not the biggest fan of Rondo himself. Come on guys, let's have some proper discussion here.

EDIT: Really though, did you even look at the ridiculous article? They called Blake a C, not only that, but they suggested that the Clippers are fed up with Blake's attitude? Okay? Lastly, they said the Clippers might trade BLAKE for Rondo, not Paul, Blake. Paul was just mentioned in the title probably to get more hits from internet searches. It just kept getting more and more ridiculous the more was written. The site was just spewing stuff in a hope to get more hits, it's pure nonsense. Yes, the Clippers would trade Blake for Rondo which is already stupid, and then have two PG's which is just as stupid.
og15
Forum Mod - Clippers
Forum Mod - Clippers
Posts: 50,751
And1: 33,547
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
Location: NBA Fan
 

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#8 » by og15 » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:07 am

LACtdom wrote:The reason why a 'big 3' does so well is that there is a much higher probability that if someone is having an off night, another star will be hot and it will all balance out. Because CP is a pass first point guard, we really only have 1 star on our team who scores. I can't remember the last time a team won a championship with only 1 star.
This is an interesting point, and many regular season games, this is actually true.

On the other hand, in the post-season, we see Paul generally take on a different identity. For example, against OKC he had 32, 17, 21, 23, 17, 25. Against GS he averaged only 17, but Klay did a great job on him, but the team won by 40 i game 2, so there was no reason for him to score more than 12. Game 4, it was foul trouble that threw off his scoring game and game 6 where he went 3/10 FG with 4 turnovers and 9 pts was really the only one where there was an issue.

Against Memphis in 12-13, he had one awful game with 8 pts, but the other games he had: 23, 24, 19, 35, 28. In 11-12, before his injury vs Memphis, he started off the post-season with 14, 29, 24, 27, 19 and got injured at the end of game 5 and it was downhill from there outside of the series closing games where I guess he put all he had left to try to help the team win (19 vs Mem game 7, 23 vs SA game 4).

The perception that Paul doesn't shoot enough or isn't aggressive enough just doesn't hold true or constant for the post-season, and the perception that this teams primary downfall in the playoffs has been offensive production is just not accurate when we look at how the opponents performed against us. Lastly, the idea that if Paul just scored more or something like that we would somehow have won more is also off as it's just not that simple.

For example, look at the game vs Memphis where Paul scored 8 pts, people will say it's because he wasn't aggressive or should have shot more. Well, first he was 4/11, and his 11 FGA was second most on the team, and he turned the ball over on 5 other possessions, so he just used his possessions inefficiently. Blake led with 12. If he shot more at those percentages, the team would have done worse. Second, it was a slow paced game, third, the Clippers only took 67 FGA because they committed 16 turnovers in a 85.5 pace game and didn't grab offensive rebounds. Blake and Paul actually took 34% (23/67) of the teams FGA's, compared to 37.6% during the regular season (2 less FGA). We tend not to have that context in mind when watching the game and when we just see a players point total, we just think "oh why can't they just score more".

Blake and Paul can't just score more individually to solve everything, that's the current Lakers with Kobe system, and I actually think the Lakers games this season are a great example to fans that it is about the team, not the individual. Too many fans always think if a team is struggling, one player just taking a lot of shots and having nice(r) stats whether they are efficient or not, whether the team defends and actually limits the opposing team will just solve everything. Well the Lakers atrocious defense and things like Kobe scoring 44 pts in a 21 pt loss are great examples of the limited view point that this idea proposes IMO. Though of course we've already had great example of it, even Jordan scoring a lot and actually efficiently wasn't winning series when he didn't have a great two way team, so even the good version of it is only as successful as the team can either defend or produce enough supporting offense.

Remember the Miami (and Boston) big three also worked because they were a great defense in the playoffs. They were 4th, 5th, 9th and 11th in regular season Drtg. In 12-13 when they were 9th in the regular season, they were 4th in the post-season holding opponents to 1 less pt/100 than in the regular season, and had the 4th best opponent FG% from 0-3 in the post-season. When they weren't able to play good defense (vs Spurs, gave up 105.8 ppg / 120.8 Ortg), they were destroyed, not by a team that could go to different first option guys, but a team that just ran a beautiful team offensive system. Even against Dallas, Wade dropped 27/7/5, and even with Lebron's struggles, they had enough offense to win, actually were technically producing better offensively than they had most of the playoffs, it just wasn't primarily coming from Lebron anymore. Problem is that they gave up 110.7 Ortg, after giving up only 103.4 Ortg the whole playoffs before that, so they needed more offense than what they had been doing to beat Dallas. They needed Wade to put up 27/5 while Lebron still put up his numbers.
og15
Forum Mod - Clippers
Forum Mod - Clippers
Posts: 50,751
And1: 33,547
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
Location: NBA Fan
 

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#9 » by og15 » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:23 am

MartinToVaught wrote:That PER looks really good if you ignore the small sample size, considering he's never been past the second round. The reality is, a small point guard dominating the ball is not a recipe for playoff success. The only example in recent memory is Isiah, and even then, Joe Dumars' defense (especially on Jordan) and scoring was arguably the lynchpin of the Pistons' title runs, and Dumars was the Finals MVP in '89. If you include Finals losers, then there's Iverson, who played in an abysmal Eastern Conference and got steamrolled in the Finals. That's it.

CP3 obviously can't help his size, but if he wants to have playoff success, he needs to accept a much smaller role and a much smaller salary so that we can get the two-way wings we need. With CP3 dominating the ball and our cap space, there's always going to be a second-round ceiling hanging over this team.

You do realize that CP has played in 53 playoff games? That's a great sample size, I don't get your sample size comment. Interestingly enough, if not for the seasons where he was playing with some pretty limiting injuries in the post-season, it would be even higher.

The lynchpin of the Pistons titles was TEAM defense. Comparing Iverson and Paul's games makes little sense.

Basically the article is saying that a lot of the presuppositions about the reasons why a guy like CP for example hasn't had playoff success have no factual basis and are just people spewing out conjecture, and your response is to spew out more conjecture :banghead: . For example, many people would say "oh well the little guys can't create as well down the stretch", but then objectively, Paul has had great closing performances at the end of games and has even shot 50%, which means that there's something else OUTSIDE of him preventing his teams from winning (eg: team defense, team offense, just plain playing against superior teams).

Lastly, you're new here and all, but what's all this salary stuff? It's not one or the other, you don't get rid of Paul and then suddenly you have two high level two way wings just like that. This wasn't the option. The NBA has a salary cap for a reason, and part of that reason is to make it not so easy to just rack up the talent you want whenever you want. Warriors had pretty nice two way wings in Thompson and Iguodala and lost to the Clippers last season, and actually their biggest need in the series was probably some more defense, not even more offense as they gave up 111 ppg and 115 Ortg to the Clippers.

You really need to outline this scenario of how somehow without Paul the team would have acquired these saving two way wings under the salary cap. The only two way wings that were available (for the Clippers) via free agent market recently were Andre Iguodala, Luol Deng and Trevor Ariza. None of the better two way wings currently available were in a position to be signed or acquired in any simple manner. The Clippers weren't not having Paul away from getting Lebron James or Kevin Durant.

So unless you can give us a detailed explanation of exactly what this alternate scenario (realistic) would be, then you're just saying random stuff. Sure, we could have any player we wanted if we weren't paying Paul so much, except for the fact that we couldn't....
Wammy Giveaway
Veteran
Posts: 2,551
And1: 1,154
Joined: Jul 30, 2013

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#10 » by Wammy Giveaway » Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:31 am

og15 wrote:Sacrificing assists won't do anything, what is with all this shallow nonsense analysis? This is exactly what the article is arguing against.


Are we to suggest that Chris Paul should be judged in a completely separate tier? Instead of stats, rings, and basketball narrative, he should be judged primary by his character. He's a nice human being off the court, and a feisty competitor on the court. If Chris Paul ends up like Tracy McGrady or Dominique Wilkins as far as playoff ceiling is concerned, will he still be celebrated in the same way that we do with players who have rings just by his character? Charles Barkley never won a ring because he lost to the invincible Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls, but he reinvented himself as a no-nonsense free-spirited analyst as part of the four-man-group Inside The NBA. Being a part of TNT has helped us to remember him both as a character and a player.

Basically, what else can he do so that he can be remembered, one ring or no rings?
User avatar
Neddy
RealGM
Posts: 15,865
And1: 3,908
Joined: Jan 28, 2012
     

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#11 » by Neddy » Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:40 am

Wammy Giveaway wrote:
og15 wrote:Sacrificing assists won't do anything, what is with all this shallow nonsense analysis? This is exactly what the article is arguing against.


Are we to suggest that Chris Paul should be judged in a completely separate tier? Instead of stats, rings, and basketball narrative, he should be judged primary by his character. He's a nice human being off the court, and a feisty competitor on the court. If Chris Paul ends up like Tracy McGrady or Dominique Wilkins as far as playoff ceiling is concerned, will he still be celebrated in the same way that we do with players who have rings just by his character? Charles Barkley never won a ring because he lost to the invincible Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls, but he reinvented himself as a no-nonsense free-spirited analyst as part of the four-man-group Inside The NBA. Being a part of TNT has helped us to remember him both as a character and a player.

Basically, what else can he do so that he can be remembered, one ring or no rings?


i hate replying to your trolling posts regardless it is due to actual intention or simple stupidity, but felt too compelled to make my peace.

did Ted Williams ever win the World Series? did Barry Sanders ever win the Superbowl? did Patrick Ewing ever win the NBA title? in your idiocy Pablo Sandoval is three times better player than Ted Williams since Panda won 3 WS trophies already. you are telling me that Trent Dilfer is the better football player than Barry Sanders? OJ Simpson, Thurman Thomas, Lincoln Kennedy, JIm Kelly, Tim Brown, Eric Dickerson, LaDainian Thomlinson, Cris Carter, Curtis Martin, and so many greats are worse than say, Percy Harvin or Malcolm Smith? is Robert Horry the better player than Patrick Ewing, Dominique Wilkins, and yours truly, Charles Barkley?

I loved young Charles. he was an incredible ball player especially in the 80s and early part of the 90s. what he isn't, is being a good analyst. he talks out of his gut or aka his ass most of the time. his evidence is always antidotal. there is never a statistics based or any actual tangible evidence behind any of his claims. in fact i can't stand his buffoonery that either i change the channel or turn the tv off during the half time and end of the game.

stop your trolling. if you actually believe in this crap, stop your idiocy. please.
ehhhhh f it.
User avatar
Quake Griffin
RealGM
Posts: 15,460
And1: 4,676
Joined: Jul 06, 2012
     

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#12 » by Quake Griffin » Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:56 am

Neddy wrote:
Wammy Giveaway wrote:
og15 wrote:Sacrificing assists won't do anything, what is with all this shallow nonsense analysis? This is exactly what the article is arguing against.


Are we to suggest that Chris Paul should be judged in a completely separate tier? Instead of stats, rings, and basketball narrative, he should be judged primary by his character. He's a nice human being off the court, and a feisty competitor on the court. If Chris Paul ends up like Tracy McGrady or Dominique Wilkins as far as playoff ceiling is concerned, will he still be celebrated in the same way that we do with players who have rings just by his character? Charles Barkley never won a ring because he lost to the invincible Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls, but he reinvented himself as a no-nonsense free-spirited analyst as part of the four-man-group Inside The NBA. Being a part of TNT has helped us to remember him both as a character and a player.

Basically, what else can he do so that he can be remembered, one ring or no rings?


i hate replying to your trolling posts regardless it is due to actual intention or simple stupidity, but felt too compelled to make my peace.

did Ted Williams ever win the World Series? did Barry Sanders ever win the Superbowl? did Patrick Ewing ever win the NBA title? in your idiocy Pablo Sandoval is three times better player than Ted Williams since Panda won 3 WS trophies already. you are telling me that Trent Dilfer is the better football player than Barry Sanders? OJ Simpson, Thurman Thomas, Lincoln Kennedy, JIm Kelly, Tim Brown, Eric Dickerson, LaDainian Thomlinson, Cris Carter, Curtis Martin, and so many greats are worse than say, Percy Harvin or Malcolm Smith? is Robert Horry the better player than Patrick Ewing, Dominique Wilkins, and yours truly, Charles Barkley?

I loved young Charles. he was an incredible ball player especially in the 80s and early part of the 90s. what he isn't, is being a good analyst. he talks out of his gut or aka his ass most of the time. his evidence is always antidotal. there is never a statistics based or any actual tangible evidence behind any of his claims. in fact i can't stand his buffoonery that either i change the channel or turn the tv off during the half time and end of the game.

stop your trolling. if you actually believe in this crap, stop your idiocy. please.

part of me believes there might be a set of Warriors or Laker fans who have created relatively new accounts, showed themselves as a friend and then proceeded to try and annoy the hell out of people with the negativity and trolling.

so i made a call upstairs to figure out how to use the ignore button. wont comment on whether or not I've used it....but for the first time, I have considered it on these boards.
“I’ve always felt that drafting is the life blood of any organization.” - Jerome Alan West.
og15
Forum Mod - Clippers
Forum Mod - Clippers
Posts: 50,751
And1: 33,547
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
Location: NBA Fan
 

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#13 » by og15 » Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:18 am

Wammy Giveaway wrote:
og15 wrote:Sacrificing assists won't do anything, what is with all this shallow nonsense analysis? This is exactly what the article is arguing against.


Are we to suggest that Chris Paul should be judged in a completely separate tier? Instead of stats, rings, and basketball narrative, he should be judged primary by his character. He's a nice human being off the court, and a feisty competitor on the court. If Chris Paul ends up like Tracy McGrady or Dominique Wilkins as far as playoff ceiling is concerned, will he still be celebrated in the same way that we do with players who have rings just by his character? Charles Barkley never won a ring because he lost to the invincible Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls, but he reinvented himself as a no-nonsense free-spirited analyst as part of the four-man-group Inside The NBA. Being a part of TNT has helped us to remember him both as a character and a player.

Basically, what else can he do so that he can be remembered, one ring or no rings?

I don't even know what this has to do with the fact that the article you quote wasn't even saying what you said it was saying and was ridiculous.

Chris Paul should be judged on his production and how well he helped his teams, but judging on rounds won and rings without context is simplistic and just plain dumb. Players don't magically win against equally as good players on better teams just because they do some magical stuff.

Assists aren't holding Paul back, you're just making a correlation that has no causation related to it. Paul averages 9.7 apg in the playoffs, if he went up 0.3 apg to 10 apg, he wouldn't be less likely to win. If last season, Paul had averaged 9 apg in the playoffs instead of 10.3 apg, it wouldn't have changed anything. It's just not analysis, it's just finding random patterns and making conclusions based on them that they aren't capable of making. Westbrook had 10, 13, 6 and 12 assists in the Thunder's wins (10.3 apg). Clearly assisting wasn't holding him back.
Wammy Giveaway
Veteran
Posts: 2,551
And1: 1,154
Joined: Jul 30, 2013

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#14 » by Wammy Giveaway » Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:37 am

og15 wrote:
Wammy Giveaway wrote:
og15 wrote:Sacrificing assists won't do anything, what is with all this shallow nonsense analysis? This is exactly what the article is arguing against.


Are we to suggest that Chris Paul should be judged in a completely separate tier? Instead of stats, rings, and basketball narrative, he should be judged primary by his character. He's a nice human being off the court, and a feisty competitor on the court. If Chris Paul ends up like Tracy McGrady or Dominique Wilkins as far as playoff ceiling is concerned, will he still be celebrated in the same way that we do with players who have rings just by his character? Charles Barkley never won a ring because he lost to the invincible Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls, but he reinvented himself as a no-nonsense free-spirited analyst as part of the four-man-group Inside The NBA. Being a part of TNT has helped us to remember him both as a character and a player.

Basically, what else can he do so that he can be remembered, one ring or no rings?

I don't even know what this has to do with the fact that the article you quote wasn't even saying what you said it was saying and was ridiculous.

Chris Paul should be judged on his production and how well he helped his teams, but judging on rounds won and rings without context is simplistic and just plain dumb. Players don't magically win against equally as good players on better teams just because they do some magical stuff.

Assists aren't holding Paul back, you're just making a correlation that has no causation related to it. Paul averages 9.7 apg in the playoffs, if he went up 0.3 apg to 10 apg, he wouldn't be less likely to win. If last season, Paul had averaged 9 apg in the playoffs instead of 10.3 apg, it wouldn't have changed anything. It's just not analysis, it's just finding random patterns and making conclusions based on them that they aren't capable of making. Westbrook had 10, 13, 6 and 12 assists in the Thunder's wins (10.3 apg). Clearly assisting wasn't holding him back.


I'm not trying to be mean or anything, I just want to know if Chris Paul is a special case kind of player as far as being judged goes. Just because I say something doesn't mean I'm out to intentionally hurt their livelihood.

As far as the link I posted above goes, this was only meant as a reply to Martin. Wasn't meant to be taken seriously. But anytime I find something like this, I feel obligated to post it.
LACtdom
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,556
And1: 341
Joined: Jun 05, 2013
Location: Australia
   

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#15 » by LACtdom » Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:06 am

og15 wrote:
LACtdom wrote:The reason why a 'big 3' does so well is that there is a much higher probability that if someone is having an off night, another star will be hot and it will all balance out. Because CP is a pass first point guard, we really only have 1 star on our team who scores. I can't remember the last time a team won a championship with only 1 star.
This is an interesting point, and many regular season games, this is actually true.

On the other hand, in the post-season, we see Paul generally take on a different identity. For example, against OKC he had 32, 17, 21, 23, 17, 25. Against GS he averaged only 17, but Klay did a great job on him, but the team won by 40 i game 2, so there was no reason for him to score more than 12. Game 4, it was foul trouble that threw off his scoring game and game 6 where he went 3/10 FG with 4 turnovers and 9 pts was really the only one where there was an issue.

Against Memphis in 12-13, he had one awful game with 8 pts, but the other games he had: 23, 24, 19, 35, 28. In 11-12, before his injury vs Memphis, he started off the post-season with 14, 29, 24, 27, 19 and got injured at the end of game 5 and it was downhill from there outside of the series closing games where I guess he put all he had left to try to help the team win (19 vs Mem game 7, 23 vs SA game 4).

The perception that Paul doesn't shoot enough or isn't aggressive enough just doesn't hold true or constant for the post-season, and the perception that this teams primary downfall in the playoffs has been offensive production is just not accurate when we look at how the opponents performed against us. Lastly, the idea that if Paul just scored more or something like that we would somehow have won more is also off as it's just not that simple.

For example, look at the game vs Memphis where Paul scored 8 pts, people will say it's because he wasn't aggressive or should have shot more. Well, first he was 4/11, and his 11 FGA was second most on the team, and he turned the ball over on 5 other possessions, so he just used his possessions inefficiently. Blake led with 12. If he shot more at those percentages, the team would have done worse. Second, it was a slow paced game, third, the Clippers only took 67 FGA because they committed 16 turnovers in a 85.5 pace game and didn't grab offensive rebounds. Blake and Paul actually took 34% (23/67) of the teams FGA's, compared to 37.6% during the regular season (2 less FGA). We tend not to have that context in mind when watching the game and when we just see a players point total, we just think "oh why can't they just score more".

Blake and Paul can't just score more individually to solve everything, that's the current Lakers with Kobe system, and I actually think the Lakers games this season are a great example to fans that it is about the team, not the individual. Too many fans always think if a team is struggling, one player just taking a lot of shots and having nice(r) stats whether they are efficient or not, whether the team defends and actually limits the opposing team will just solve everything. Well the Lakers atrocious defense and things like Kobe scoring 44 pts in a 21 pt loss are great examples of the limited view point that this idea proposes IMO. Though of course we've already had great example of it, even Jordan scoring a lot and actually efficiently wasn't winning series when he didn't have a great two way team, so even the good version of it is only as successful as the team can either defend or produce enough supporting offense.

Remember the Miami (and Boston) big three also worked because they were a great defense in the playoffs. They were 4th, 5th, 9th and 11th in regular season Drtg. In 12-13 when they were 9th in the regular season, they were 4th in the post-season holding opponents to 1 less pt/100 than in the regular season, and had the 4th best opponent FG% from 0-3 in the post-season. When they weren't able to play good defense (vs Spurs, gave up 105.8 ppg / 120.8 Ortg), they were destroyed, not by a team that could go to different first option guys, but a team that just ran a beautiful team offensive system. Even against Dallas, Wade dropped 27/7/5, and even with Lebron's struggles, they had enough offense to win, actually were technically producing better offensively than they had most of the playoffs, it just wasn't primarily coming from Lebron anymore. Problem is that they gave up 110.7 Ortg, after giving up only 103.4 Ortg the whole playoffs before that, so they needed more offense than what they had been doing to beat Dallas. They needed Wade to put up 27/5 while Lebron still put up his numbers.


Very good post. My point is less directed at Chris Paul and more at the team. If we don't become a defensive powerhouse then we will never win because SCORING-WISE, CP, Blake & DJ are not as good as Westbrook, Durant & Ibaka.
User avatar
QRich3
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 5,844
And1: 3,947
Joined: Apr 03, 2011
 

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#16 » by QRich3 » Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:41 am

Quake Griffin wrote:part of me believes there might be a set of Warriors or Laker fans who have created relatively new accounts, showed themselves as a friend and then proceeded to try and annoy the hell out of people with the negativity and trolling.

No kidding, I've been noticing that for a while, can't really tell if it's an influx of really young guys that haven't really understood how the game works yet, or it's actually other team's fans somehow thinking this trolling foolishness is funny or clever.
User avatar
Quake Griffin
RealGM
Posts: 15,460
And1: 4,676
Joined: Jul 06, 2012
     

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#17 » by Quake Griffin » Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:00 pm

LACtdom wrote:
og15 wrote:
LACtdom wrote:The reason why a 'big 3' does so well is that there is a much higher probability that if someone is having an off night, another star will be hot and it will all balance out. Because CP is a pass first point guard, we really only have 1 star on our team who scores. I can't remember the last time a team won a championship with only 1 star.
This is an interesting point, and many regular season games, this is actually true.

On the other hand, in the post-season, we see Paul generally take on a different identity. For example, against OKC he had 32, 17, 21, 23, 17, 25. Against GS he averaged only 17, but Klay did a great job on him, but the team won by 40 i game 2, so there was no reason for him to score more than 12. Game 4, it was foul trouble that threw off his scoring game and game 6 where he went 3/10 FG with 4 turnovers and 9 pts was really the only one where there was an issue.

Against Memphis in 12-13, he had one awful game with 8 pts, but the other games he had: 23, 24, 19, 35, 28. In 11-12, before his injury vs Memphis, he started off the post-season with 14, 29, 24, 27, 19 and got injured at the end of game 5 and it was downhill from there outside of the series closing games where I guess he put all he had left to try to help the team win (19 vs Mem game 7, 23 vs SA game 4).

The perception that Paul doesn't shoot enough or isn't aggressive enough just doesn't hold true or constant for the post-season, and the perception that this teams primary downfall in the playoffs has been offensive production is just not accurate when we look at how the opponents performed against us. Lastly, the idea that if Paul just scored more or something like that we would somehow have won more is also off as it's just not that simple.

For example, look at the game vs Memphis where Paul scored 8 pts, people will say it's because he wasn't aggressive or should have shot more. Well, first he was 4/11, and his 11 FGA was second most on the team, and he turned the ball over on 5 other possessions, so he just used his possessions inefficiently. Blake led with 12. If he shot more at those percentages, the team would have done worse. Second, it was a slow paced game, third, the Clippers only took 67 FGA because they committed 16 turnovers in a 85.5 pace game and didn't grab offensive rebounds. Blake and Paul actually took 34% (23/67) of the teams FGA's, compared to 37.6% during the regular season (2 less FGA). We tend not to have that context in mind when watching the game and when we just see a players point total, we just think "oh why can't they just score more".

Blake and Paul can't just score more individually to solve everything, that's the current Lakers with Kobe system, and I actually think the Lakers games this season are a great example to fans that it is about the team, not the individual. Too many fans always think if a team is struggling, one player just taking a lot of shots and having nice(r) stats whether they are efficient or not, whether the team defends and actually limits the opposing team will just solve everything. Well the Lakers atrocious defense and things like Kobe scoring 44 pts in a 21 pt loss are great examples of the limited view point that this idea proposes IMO. Though of course we've already had great example of it, even Jordan scoring a lot and actually efficiently wasn't winning series when he didn't have a great two way team, so even the good version of it is only as successful as the team can either defend or produce enough supporting offense.

Remember the Miami (and Boston) big three also worked because they were a great defense in the playoffs. They were 4th, 5th, 9th and 11th in regular season Drtg. In 12-13 when they were 9th in the regular season, they were 4th in the post-season holding opponents to 1 less pt/100 than in the regular season, and had the 4th best opponent FG% from 0-3 in the post-season. When they weren't able to play good defense (vs Spurs, gave up 105.8 ppg / 120.8 Ortg), they were destroyed, not by a team that could go to different first option guys, but a team that just ran a beautiful team offensive system. Even against Dallas, Wade dropped 27/7/5, and even with Lebron's struggles, they had enough offense to win, actually were technically producing better offensively than they had most of the playoffs, it just wasn't primarily coming from Lebron anymore. Problem is that they gave up 110.7 Ortg, after giving up only 103.4 Ortg the whole playoffs before that, so they needed more offense than what they had been doing to beat Dallas. They needed Wade to put up 27/5 while Lebron still put up his numbers.


Very good post. My point is less directed at Chris Paul and more at the team. If we don't become a defensive powerhouse then we will never win because SCORING-WISE, CP, Blake & DJ are not as good as Westbrook, Durant & Ibaka.

they might be better.
we should have won that series in 6 games.
“I’ve always felt that drafting is the life blood of any organization.” - Jerome Alan West.
LACtdom
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,556
And1: 341
Joined: Jun 05, 2013
Location: Australia
   

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#18 » by LACtdom » Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:15 pm

Quake Griffin wrote:
LACtdom wrote:
og15 wrote:This is an interesting point, and many regular season games, this is actually true.

On the other hand, in the post-season, we see Paul generally take on a different identity. For example, against OKC he had 32, 17, 21, 23, 17, 25. Against GS he averaged only 17, but Klay did a great job on him, but the team won by 40 i game 2, so there was no reason for him to score more than 12. Game 4, it was foul trouble that threw off his scoring game and game 6 where he went 3/10 FG with 4 turnovers and 9 pts was really the only one where there was an issue.

Against Memphis in 12-13, he had one awful game with 8 pts, but the other games he had: 23, 24, 19, 35, 28. In 11-12, before his injury vs Memphis, he started off the post-season with 14, 29, 24, 27, 19 and got injured at the end of game 5 and it was downhill from there outside of the series closing games where I guess he put all he had left to try to help the team win (19 vs Mem game 7, 23 vs SA game 4).

The perception that Paul doesn't shoot enough or isn't aggressive enough just doesn't hold true or constant for the post-season, and the perception that this teams primary downfall in the playoffs has been offensive production is just not accurate when we look at how the opponents performed against us. Lastly, the idea that if Paul just scored more or something like that we would somehow have won more is also off as it's just not that simple.

For example, look at the game vs Memphis where Paul scored 8 pts, people will say it's because he wasn't aggressive or should have shot more. Well, first he was 4/11, and his 11 FGA was second most on the team, and he turned the ball over on 5 other possessions, so he just used his possessions inefficiently. Blake led with 12. If he shot more at those percentages, the team would have done worse. Second, it was a slow paced game, third, the Clippers only took 67 FGA because they committed 16 turnovers in a 85.5 pace game and didn't grab offensive rebounds. Blake and Paul actually took 34% (23/67) of the teams FGA's, compared to 37.6% during the regular season (2 less FGA). We tend not to have that context in mind when watching the game and when we just see a players point total, we just think "oh why can't they just score more".

Blake and Paul can't just score more individually to solve everything, that's the current Lakers with Kobe system, and I actually think the Lakers games this season are a great example to fans that it is about the team, not the individual. Too many fans always think if a team is struggling, one player just taking a lot of shots and having nice(r) stats whether they are efficient or not, whether the team defends and actually limits the opposing team will just solve everything. Well the Lakers atrocious defense and things like Kobe scoring 44 pts in a 21 pt loss are great examples of the limited view point that this idea proposes IMO. Though of course we've already had great example of it, even Jordan scoring a lot and actually efficiently wasn't winning series when he didn't have a great two way team, so even the good version of it is only as successful as the team can either defend or produce enough supporting offense.

Remember the Miami (and Boston) big three also worked because they were a great defense in the playoffs. They were 4th, 5th, 9th and 11th in regular season Drtg. In 12-13 when they were 9th in the regular season, they were 4th in the post-season holding opponents to 1 less pt/100 than in the regular season, and had the 4th best opponent FG% from 0-3 in the post-season. When they weren't able to play good defense (vs Spurs, gave up 105.8 ppg / 120.8 Ortg), they were destroyed, not by a team that could go to different first option guys, but a team that just ran a beautiful team offensive system. Even against Dallas, Wade dropped 27/7/5, and even with Lebron's struggles, they had enough offense to win, actually were technically producing better offensively than they had most of the playoffs, it just wasn't primarily coming from Lebron anymore. Problem is that they gave up 110.7 Ortg, after giving up only 103.4 Ortg the whole playoffs before that, so they needed more offense than what they had been doing to beat Dallas. They needed Wade to put up 27/5 while Lebron still put up his numbers.


Very good post. My point is less directed at Chris Paul and more at the team. If we don't become a defensive powerhouse then we will never win because SCORING-WISE, CP, Blake & DJ are not as good as Westbrook, Durant & Ibaka.

they might be better.
we should have won that series in 6 games.

Everyone keeps forgetting that OKC bombed a game which we didn't deserve to win so it's even. I don't believe in saying "we should have won". Every team loses games they should have won.
User avatar
Quake Griffin
RealGM
Posts: 15,460
And1: 4,676
Joined: Jul 06, 2012
     

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#19 » by Quake Griffin » Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:45 pm

LACtdom wrote:
Quake Griffin wrote:
LACtdom wrote:
Very good post. My point is less directed at Chris Paul and more at the team. If we don't become a defensive powerhouse then we will never win because SCORING-WISE, CP, Blake & DJ are not as good as Westbrook, Durant & Ibaka.

they might be better.
we should have won that series in 6 games.

Everyone keeps forgetting that OKC bombed a game which we didn't deserve to win so it's even. I don't believe in saying "we should have won". Every team loses games they should have won.

They choked in Game 4 and we did enough to beat them.

We choked in game 5 and they didn't do enough to beat us....and then the refs came in and made it enough.


sorry. no dice.
“I’ve always felt that drafting is the life blood of any organization.” - Jerome Alan West.
LACtdom
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,556
And1: 341
Joined: Jun 05, 2013
Location: Australia
   

Re: ZL: Death to Ringz:Chris Paul and the NBA 

Post#20 » by LACtdom » Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:03 am

Quake Griffin wrote:
LACtdom wrote:
Quake Griffin wrote:they might be better.
we should have won that series in 6 games.

Everyone keeps forgetting that OKC bombed a game which we didn't deserve to win so it's even. I don't believe in saying "we should have won". Every team loses games they should have won.

They choked in Game 4 and we did enough to beat them.

We choked in game 5 and they didn't do enough to beat us....and then the refs came in and made it enough.


sorry. no dice.

The 'refs' happen to every team. The best teams don't let that get in the way of winning.

Return to Los Angeles Clippers