WCQF | (4) LA Clippers vs Utah Jazz (5) | UTA 3-2

[og15]

Don't know why Jamal keeps getting playing time when it is clear he's off in the game. We have enough previous experience to know that Mr 38% FG / 28% 3PT in the playoffs as a Clipper is not going to magically shoot better.

Crawford is 7/24 FG and 0/9 3PT in the series so far now. Of course he's going to be hot next game or something which will propel Doc to give him the benefit of the doubt in game 4 as he repeats a performance like the first two games again, ugh...

If he's off, sit him down, please!

[tarantism]

is Gobert expected to come back for the series?

[ChargerMan]

[quote="tarantism"]is Gobert expected to come back for the series?[/quote]

Most likely GM 4 or 5 if he returns

[Nate505]

Can't be too upset. Didn't think the Jazz would win both there, especially without Rudy, and they kept this game somewhat close despite getting destroyed in the paint.

That being said, it's concerning as a Jazz fan how beat up they got in the paint. If Rudy doesn't come back, that doesn't bode well in this series.

[Nate505]

When Chris Paul flops for the blk foul he said, "oh I dunno about that, I thought it was a Gordon Hayward travel"

That one irritated me the most. He was in the **** air when he took the charge. Last I looked you had to at least be on the ground to take one.

[IggyStardust]

Lol 8 free throw attempts for Clippers. Franchise low despite 60 points in paint. Something doesn't add up.

maybe doc and paul and griffin et al. are so calm and demure that the refs just don't realize that they are making unfathomably bad calls at the clips expense, every single play.

[KqWIN]

Pretty sure that the Clips got 60 points in the paint because we did not defend the paint. There was a whole lot of uncontested layups and dunks this game.

Do people not understand that FT's vs PITP is a zero sum game? If you get the line, you don't get points in the paint for it. It does add up if you have a ton of PITP and hardly any FT's.

[HawaiianJazzFan]

Lol 8 free throw attempts for Clippers. Franchise low despite 60 points in paint. Something doesn't add up.

That's kinda the point... there were sooo many uncontested shots in the paint and dunks. Even Paul pierce got to the rim untouched...

[KqWIN]

The Clippers shot 27/33 (81.8%) at the rim tonight. The Jazz held opponents to 59.5% shooting at the rim this season. Now that is the Gobert factor...

[dautjazz]

is Gobert expected to come back for the series?

Yeah, how soon is hard to say, but the first round goes on to the the 30th, which is 15 days after the injury, and it's expected to be 2 weeks or under. Given that Gobert is already able to participate in shoot around in practice since Monday is a great sign. I expect him to be back sometime between games 3 and 5. I think he should be made available and put him in if necessary.

[dautjazz]

Lol 8 free throw attempts for Clippers. Franchise low despite 60 points in paint. Something doesn't add up.

That's kinda the point... there were sooo many uncontested shots in the paint and dunks. Even Paul pierce got to the rim untouched...

Yup, instead of complaining about lack of free throws, one needs to consider how physical those dunks, put backs, and layups actually were, and honestly they were pretty wide open. Terrible interior defense by Utah most of the game, especially the first half.

[dautjazz]

Pretty sure that the Clips got 60 points in the paint because we did not defend the paint. There was a whole lot of uncontested layups and dunks this game.

Do people not understand that FT's vs PITP is a zero sum game? If you get the line, you don't get points in the paint for it. It does add up if you have a ton of PITP and hardly any FT's.

Didn't see this post before my last post, but exactly, it was a ton of uncontested shots. We would of probably won in a blowout if Gobert played this game.

[bakesale]

Pretty sure that the Clips got 60 points in the paint because we did not defend the paint. There was a whole lot of uncontested layups and dunks this game.

Do people not understand that FT's vs PITP is a zero sum game? If you get the line, you don't get points in the paint for it. It does add up if you have a ton of PITP and hardly any FT's.

Well explained.

[OkcSinceSGA]

Pretty sure that the Clips got 60 points in the paint because we did not defend the paint. There was a whole lot of uncontested layups and dunks this game.

Do people not understand that FT's vs PITP is a zero sum game? If you get the line, you don't get points in the paint for it. It does add up if you have a ton of PITP and hardly any FT's.

There is actually a pretty strong correlation between the two stats. So it's quite relevant. There is more contact in the paint than out. Whether or not many of these points were wide open that's still a massive number to have 8 FT. Unless you guys believe the Clippers had literally 22-26 dunks and layups that were wide open lol.

I was surprised by the stat is all. I watch the Clippers get killed by refs often enough that it just feels like deja vu.

[MartinToVaught]

The way CP3 and Blake played last night is how they should approach every playoff game.

CP3 looked for his shot from the very beginning instead of coming out passive. And despite everyone calling me a "hater" and "clueless" because I criticized CP3 for doing the opposite in Game 1, it did make a difference, it did set a positive tone for the game, and it did help us win.

Blake was much more assertive and confident on offense. He didn't resort to slow bully-ball. He used his face-up game more. He also hit a clutch three towards the end of the game. Where are all the naysayers who made him out to be some huge choke artist and the worst postseason player ever based on one quarter of basketball? They've been awfully quiet.

Despite that and Utah's defensive woes, we still only won by single digits at home. I still don't feel confident at all in our chances of winning this series. Utah clearly has the more balanced and better-coached team, and their defense is going to improve when Gobert comes back.

[MartinToVaught]

How Chris Paul's aggressiveness sparked Clippers 99-91 Game 2 win over Jazz

Whether he pulled up for a shot, set up a teammate or warded off his defender with his ball-handling skills, Clippers guard Chris Paul had one thought racing through his mind.

"Just trying to be aggressive," Paul said.

That thought process never stopped as the Clippers secured a 99-91 Game 2 victory over the Utah Jazz on Tuesday at Staples Center and tied the series, 1-1.

"He came out tonight and was really aggressive. We need him to do that," Mbah a Moute said. "Sometimes he gets caught up in trying to get everybody involved and gets guys going. But when he comes out and plays aggressive, that helps a lot."

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20170419/how-chris-pauls-aggressiveness-sparked-clippers-99-91-game-2-win-over-jazz

[JXL]

I would still be concerned if I'm Doc. Jazz's perimeter defense took away much of their 3 pointers. Blake and DeAndre dominated the paint and did whatever they wanted. Gobert's absence will be a big factor, but I think Withey and Favors have to play a bit more physical defensively to have a chance to win this series.

[og15]

Pretty sure that the Clips got 60 points in the paint because we did not defend the paint. There was a whole lot of uncontested layups and dunks this game.

Do people not understand that FT's vs PITP is a zero sum game? If you get the line, you don't get points in the paint for it. It does add up if you have a ton of PITP and hardly any FT's.

Didn't see this post before my last post, but exactly, it was a ton of uncontested shots. We would of probably won in a blowout if Gobert played this game.

It's not so simple and straight forward. There was one Jazz main player who played all 4 games against the Clippers, and it was Gobert. The Clippers aren't just handcuffed just because he's on the floor. Rotations change, strategies change, it gives the Jazz a better chance, but Utah could have even lost game 1 if Gobert was playing instead just because the game might now flow differently and it doesn't necessarily mean it would push the game in the Jazz's favor in a drastic way.

The way CP3 and Blake played last night is how they should approach every playoff game.

CP3 looked for his shot from the very beginning instead of coming out passive. And despite everyone calling me a "hater" and "clueless" because I criticized CP3 for doing the opposite in Game 1, it did make a difference, it did set a positive tone for the game, and it did help us win.

Blake was much more assertive and confident on offense. He didn't resort to slow bully-ball. He used his face-up game more. He also hit a clutch three towards the end of the game. Where are all the naysayers who made him out to be some huge choke artist and the worst postseason player ever based on one quarter of basketball? They've been awfully quiet.

Despite that and Utah's defensive woes, we still only won by single digits at home. I still don't feel confident at all in our chances of winning this series. Utah clearly has the more balanced and better-coached team, and their defense is going to improve when Gobert comes back.

Honestly if you got criticized, it was probably because you said that the fact that it was a close game was "largely" because of Paul's lack of aggression, essentially trying to primary put Paul at the center of "blame". Jazz had their largest lead of the night which the Clippers had to cut down when Paul sat, and we even had BG on the floor then. The Jazz aren't a bad team. Paul still ended the game +1, and it has seemed like in your economy of observation depending on the narrative you want to play, having a low production first half but coming out like Paul did in the second half and 4th has been praised by you when it is a player you like (eg: Lebron), so the problem is that it always depends. If you had a consistent analysis it would be different.

So we get another game sample, this time Paul was aggressive all game, and it was still a close game, so maybe it wasn't primarily his aggressiveness or lack thereof early that made it a close game, though of course I agree he should have been aggressive all game and he should always be if the opportunity is there. Still, I'm not going to make the conclusion that him being more aggressive would then mean the Clippers would have been blowing them out, and as we see it didn't. CP's shots would have to be taken from somewhere, and if Paul was aggressive, but then Blake took fewer FG, and he was the one making, it doesn't just balance out to +8 more points for the Clippers. We could literally be talking about the difference between 52-52 at half time and 56 or 58-52 at half time. That's still a close game, that still leaves the game very open for Utah to come back, especially as we saw them make a run when Paul sat. So last night maybe it was because of 4 fewer turnovers for the team, better 2nd half performances by other players, containing iso Joe better, and Jamal's chuckery not being enough to sink the team, and of course Paul's aggressiveness helped, but how much? Joe Johnson was 9/14 FG and 3/4 3PT for 21 points in game 1, he was 6/15 FG and 3/4 3PT for 13 points in game 2. Almost the same amount of FGA, he just made fewer. So if Joe Johnson had a game 1 like performance again, what happens? Hard to know, but the Jazz could have won, or it would have been quite neck to neck to end the game, but Paul was aggressive...

It's like Greg Anthony said, and others have said. The narratives are very dependent on whether you win or lose. If Joe Johnson misses the game winner, and the Clippers go into OT and win, totally different narrative. If Joe Johnson was hot again and the Clippers lost last night, totally different narrative.

The Clippers can get more production by playing Jamal a lot less, unless he's hot. If he's off, he sits. A player shooting 29% FG / 00% 3PT and who does nothing else isn't helping you win, and with Blake getting a lot of small matchups he could possibly get more going on the offensive glass. Luc did a good job last game in that area, and Hayward might get a disappointing review from Snyder for how much he lost Luc on cuts and how many offensive rebounds he let him get.

This exemplifies what I mean with your analysis though:

He's developed some bad habits because he's never really been coached at this level. The way Blake plays in the 4th is giving me Kaman flashbacks. Down the stretch, he either tries to put the ball on the floor and ends up turning it over, or he settles for too many jump shots. The latter is definitely Doc's influence at play;

Honestly, this is more of a Doc problem than a Blake problem. Blake is a hard worker and a great player who's practically begging to be coached. Every improvement he's made has been in spite of Dunleavy, VDN and Doc.

So, Blake has struggles down the stretch, and at first you say a little bit about Blake turning it over, shooting jumpers, but then the final conclusion is that it's not primarily or more about his own decision making or tentativeness, etc, but it is actually more about the coach. Now, you are setting a precedent on how to analyze a players decision making and performance and where we should give them leeway. So let's use the exact same standard for his teammate Paul. Chris Paul has been coached by Byron Scott, VDN and Doc. Who is better, Byron Scott or Mike Dunleavy? Yea, so why have you never given us this breakdown and explanation of any struggles Paul has had and said it is "more" a Doc problem? Why were none of New Orleans' issues more of a Byron Scott problem? Is that answer that "well Paul wanted Doc and forced the team to bring him", so it's his own fault! Of course the majority thought it was a good move including Blake himself and many others, but why do we have different standards, because Paul makes $1-2 million more? I'm really curious...

Understand this though, I actually don't care for this line of argument. I don't think Paul should be "excused" because of his coaching in terms of his own skills and decision making as it relates to attacking the defense, and I disagree with blaming a coach for limitations a players game. I'm just wondering it you see that you might be so ingrained in your biases, positive or negative that you consistently contradict yourself and use clear double standards but are seemingly unaware of it. Do you not realize it or are you just content with the double standards and contradictions?

[Ballerhogger]

How healthy gobert come back is very important. The jazz are two very very differnt teams without him. His 100m contract looks good if he can comeback from being hurt.

[MartinToVaught]

Honestly if you got criticized, it was probably because you said that the fact that it was a close game was "largely" because of Paul's lack of aggression, essentially trying to primary put Paul at the center of "blame".

Most of the game went by before Paul started to look for his own shot with any regularity, and by then, it was simply too late. Blake was fantastic in the first half and we were still tied at halftime with the Gobert-less Jazz on our home court. If Chris had just been aggressive from the start of that game, there's a very good chance we're up at halftime. Then the Jazz are looking at a halftime deficit on the road while they're still reeling from Gobert's injury, and it's hard not to see the second half playing out much differently than it did.

Was Paul the only reason we lost Game 1? No, far from it. Doc was atrocious as usual, JJ and Jamal pulled their usual chokejobs, and Blake switched into Kaman mode down the stretch instead of sticking with what was working. But Paul's lack of aggression was absolutely a major factor. You can't take three quarters off in a four-quarter game and then not receive any blame if you lose - it just doesn't work that way. If you don't see how CP3's timidness set a bad tone for the game, I don't know what to tell you.

Paul himself realized this, because he consciously changed his approach for Game 2. Paul's teammates realized this. Luc went out of his way to praise Paul's aggressiveness after the game and encourage him to keep it up. Some people just have a tendency to get overly sensitive towards any criticism of Paul's play, regardless of how valid it is. So when I put the name on the front of the jersey ahead of the name on the back, that makes me a "hater" instead of an objective fan of the team.

I'm always willing to give praise when it's warranted. I love how Paul played last night and have no complaints whatsoever. But I'm also not going to put one player on a pedestal above the rest of the team and act like nothing is ever their fault.