RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #22

[trex_8063]

Thru post #80:

Dwyane Wade - 8 (2klegend, CodeBreaker, Joao Saraiva, JordansBulls, mischievous, pandrade83, trex_8063, twolves97)
George Mikan - 4 (penbeast0, janmagn, JoeMalburg, wojoaderge)
Bob Pettit - 3 (Doctor MJ, Pablo Novi, scabbarista)
Chris Paul - 1 (Bad Gatorade)
Kevin Durant - 1 (andrewww)
Elgin Baylor - 1 (euroleague)
Patrick Ewing - 1 (Hornet Mania)
Stephen Curry - 1 (oldschooled)
Scottie Pippen - 1 (RCM88x)

Thread will be open probably 4 or so more hours.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Dr Spaceman]

g

At this moment I'm leaning toward Paul highest if these 4. I don't really buy that his teams have regularly underachieved. His teams have been excellent but have faced incredibly tough competition and in LA literally everyone around him has been a freaking knucklehead. I do think Paul is a prick that people don't enjoy playing around, and that hurts him some, but the question is how much. Oscar is already in and he was basically the exact same type of prick.

While I think Paul has a definite case here, is his health not a concern? Since 2008, he has averaged 13 missed games per season, and his injuries often derail an otherwise promising playoff run (2013- bruises thumb against Grizzlies, although Griffin´s injury ended up being more substantial, 2015-pulls hamstring causing him to sit games and ultimately lose to Houston, 2016- breaks hand agains Portland). I mean it's almost Russian Roulette for him.

Maybe people could lay that out in more detail for me.

To me Paul has been a consistent superstar when he plays for quite a while now, so adding up injuries doesn't really make much of a dent, but an argument that can convince me that his body naturally breaks down late in the season might.

Sure thing. I've talked in other places on the board about how I don't think Paul's body can hold up to NBA basketball, and forgot not everybody reads every post

Taking a cross-section of his Clippers' career, his hamstring (slash hip flexor slash groin) has hampered him almost every playoffs he's been in a Clippers uniform, and he's now broken or sprained a hand 3 times by getting it caught in an opponents' jersey. Now I'm not a physical therapist, but it's clear to me that repeated injuries to the lower core and upper legs are a problem of overuse. As far as the hand thing, it's just weird that it keeps happening the same way. Plenty of guys play ball for ears and never have that injury.

2012: sprained middle finger and sprained right hip flexor, a continuation of a groin injury which happened in game 80. Source: http://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/id/7914423/nba-playoffs-blake-griffin-chris-paul-injuries-hurt-clippers-chances

Spoiler:

In the first quarter, Paul jammed the middle finger on his right hand. Though Paul, as usual, denied that the injury had any adverse affect on his play, he was quiet through much of the game. At halftime, he had five points on 1-for-5 shooting with only a single assist -- very un-Paul-ish production.

In the fourth quarter, fears that Paul was less than 100 percent were exacerbated when he could be seen hobbling and holding his midsection. The initial prognosis was that he had aggravated the groin injury that kept him out of the Clippers' final two regular-season games. As it turned out, Paul had strained his right hip flexor.

"I felt a little sharp pain in my leg," he said. "I'll be all right."

Paul clearly wasn't, because he alternated dribbles with clutches to his right hip. How debilitated was Paul? Williams was assigned to guard the ball during the closing minutes. Clippers coach Vinny Del Negro ultimately pulled Paul from the game with 1:24 remaining and his team trailing by eight points.

2013: Paul bruises thumb in Quincy Pondexter's jersey against Grizzlies, leaves game. Source:http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/9232581/2013-nba-playoffs-chris-paul-los-angeles-clippers-hurt-thumb-blake-griffin-x-rays-clean

2014: Bruised thumb and hamstring issues against GSW, Doc thinks it's hurting his play. Source: https://www.google.cz/amp/www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-clippers-chris-paul-injuries-20140503-story,amp.html

Spoiler:

Paul's numbers had decreased across the board before Game 7.

His scoring average had slid from 19.1 points in the regular season to 16.7 in the first six playoff games. His assists were down from 10.7 to 8.2 a game, and his shooting accuracy had dropped from 46.7% in the regular season to 40.2% in the first six playoff games.

Paul's coach was, yeah, slightly concerned about him before Game 7.

"He just can't get away from anybody offensively," Doc Rivers said, more concerned about the strained hamstring than the sore thumb. "When you watch him in film, he really struggles where he's great on the [isolations], especially on the elbows, he just can't get away from anybody."

2015: well publicized hamstring injury in game 7 against SAS, misses Games 1 and 2 vs HOU

2016: Well publicized broken hand against Portland in game 3

2017: none that I'm aware of.

So in 6 seasons with he Clippers, he's been limited by a hamstring or hand or both in 5 of them. I don't know if the same injury reoccurring every year is what you're looking for here, but it's there.

[Xherdan 23]

OK, even limiting it to ATG type players (might want to make it top 50 or top 100 or otherwise you might miss players like Isiah who might or might not make top 30), the point is that people remember scorers taking the final shot when it works. That's why Kobe has this myth of being super clutch when analysis shows he actually hurts his team playing hero ball over the long run. Is a player who forces bad shots in the clutch ACTUALLY more likely to produce a win than a player who passes out of the double/triple team to an open Horry/Paxson type shooter for a good shot? I find it hard to believe and have never bought into the argument you are making. That's why I want to see some analysis before accepting that hero ball is a good thing.

I agree with what you say but I would like to point out that without these aggressive players (MJ, Kobe) taking ridiculous shots and being overly aggressive sometimes, Horry and Paxon don't get left open for that shot.
Nobody's going to double Stockton on the final play so he could pass to an open Hornacek for an open three because Stockton doesn't have that mentality.

[Doctor MJ]

Well you could go there, but at the same time, we can sit back and say if not for Lebron's fluky 2011 finals performance, Wade has 2 FMVPs, and likely 4 rings altogether.

Even so, i always hear from many posters on the board how level of play matters much more than win/loss in a series, so why would it be drastically different for him?

If LeBron wasn't there, Wade isn't in the finals.
If LeBron was normal in the finals, Wade isn't the Finals MVP.
Regardless I don't put that much stock in Finals MVP.

That said, I've talked about how much Wade's aggressive motor at times has impressed me, and I don't mean to dismiss that.

You seem to be missing the point though. Its not about accolades per say, the point is Wade's performance was not at all flukey since he has proved on other occasions he can play at high levels over a playoff run. If the Heat winning was flukey, that can't be against Wade since he pretty much performed as well as he possibly could. I don't get your angle here.

And to your other point, not necessarily. Wade showed he could outplay Lebron in a series, so there's no guarantee one or the other wins fmvp, that's why i said if Lebron plays 75% of himself which he did not.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I was the one who used "fluky", so if we're using it to mean two different things, then you're the one still missing the point.

I do get your confusion though because I alluded to the upset which made it seem like the upset was what I was referring to when in reality I was referring to that Heat team being trash compared to a typical champion. In normal years, a team like that doesn't win the title. Simple as that.

Re: not necessarily. Look LeBron was the better player in general so for Wade to win Finals MVP LeBron had to play good but not too good, bad but not too bad. It could have happened but we shouldn't be acting like it was it was somehow bizarre Wade missed out on the Finals MVP. Realistically, if they play the series 20 times, Wade maybe only wins the Finals MVP once or twice.

But as I believe you and I have both said, the important thing is the quality of play not the award. I respect how Wade played quite a bit and I've left an opening multiple times for people to argue for Wade based on the significance of his ability to pick up his motor for short bursts just as I've left openings for potentially taking down Paul. Still waiting on those things to happen, but I welcome people looking to do so.

[Doctor MJ]

While I think Paul has a definite case here, is his health not a concern? Since 2008, he has averaged 13 missed games per season, and his injuries often derail an otherwise promising playoff run (2013- bruises thumb against Grizzlies, although Griffin´s injury ended up being more substantial, 2015-pulls hamstring causing him to sit games and ultimately lose to Houston, 2016- breaks hand agains Portland). I mean it's almost Russian Roulette for him.

Maybe people could lay that out in more detail for me.

To me Paul has been a consistent superstar when he plays for quite a while now, so adding up injuries doesn't really make much of a dent, but an argument that can convince me that his body naturally breaks down late in the season might.

Sure thing. I've talked in other places on the board about how I don't think Paul's body can hold up to NBA basketball, and forgot not everybody reads every post

Taking a cross-section of his Clippers' career, his hamstring (slash hip flexor slash groin) has hampered him almost every playoffs he's been in a Clippers uniform, and he's now broken or sprained a hand 3 times by getting it caught in an opponents' jersey. Now I'm not a physical therapist, but it's clear to me that repeated injuries to the lower core and upper legs are a problem of overuse. As far as the hand thing, it's just weird that it keeps happening the same way. Plenty of guys play ball for ears and never have that injury.

2012: sprained middle finger and sprained right hip flexor, a continuation of a groin injury which happened in game 80. Source: http://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/id/7914423/nba-playoffs-blake-griffin-chris-paul-injuries-hurt-clippers-chances

Spoiler:

In the first quarter, Paul jammed the middle finger on his right hand. Though Paul, as usual, denied that the injury had any adverse affect on his play, he was quiet through much of the game. At halftime, he had five points on 1-for-5 shooting with only a single assist -- very un-Paul-ish production.

In the fourth quarter, fears that Paul was less than 100 percent were exacerbated when he could be seen hobbling and holding his midsection. The initial prognosis was that he had aggravated the groin injury that kept him out of the Clippers' final two regular-season games. As it turned out, Paul had strained his right hip flexor.

"I felt a little sharp pain in my leg," he said. "I'll be all right."

Paul clearly wasn't, because he alternated dribbles with clutches to his right hip. How debilitated was Paul? Williams was assigned to guard the ball during the closing minutes. Clippers coach Vinny Del Negro ultimately pulled Paul from the game with 1:24 remaining and his team trailing by eight points.

2013: Paul bruises thumb in Quincy Pondexter's jersey against Grizzlies, leaves game. Source:http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/9232581/2013-nba-playoffs-chris-paul-los-angeles-clippers-hurt-thumb-blake-griffin-x-rays-clean

2014: Bruised thumb and hamstring issues against GSW, Doc thinks it's hurting his play. Source: https://www.google.cz/amp/www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-clippers-chris-paul-injuries-20140503-story,amp.html

Spoiler:

Paul's numbers had decreased across the board before Game 7.

His scoring average had slid from 19.1 points in the regular season to 16.7 in the first six playoff games. His assists were down from 10.7 to 8.2 a game, and his shooting accuracy had dropped from 46.7% in the regular season to 40.2% in the first six playoff games.

Paul's coach was, yeah, slightly concerned about him before Game 7.

"He just can't get away from anybody offensively," Doc Rivers said, more concerned about the strained hamstring than the sore thumb. "When you watch him in film, he really struggles where he's great on the [isolations], especially on the elbows, he just can't get away from anybody."

2015: well publicized hamstring injury in game 7 against SAS, misses Games 1 and 2 vs HOU

2016: Well publicized broken hand against Portland in game 3

2017: none that I'm aware of.

So in 6 seasons with he Clippers, he's been limited by a hamstring or hand or both in 5 of them. I don't know if the same injury reoccurring every year is what you're looking for here, but it's there.

Great post, and yeah thank you for repeating what you missed.

Hopefully I've been clear: I'm not really a fan of Paul. I think people who use negative leadership have far worse effects than almost anyone realizes. But I want to make sure my philosophy doesn't bias me against Paul here, and while you gave me pretty much what I asked, I'm still on the fence.

As I look more at his playoff performances numbers, basically when he plays on average (which includes some injuries) his numbers are great, and he's only missed a grand total of 4 games in the playoffs (which occurred 2 games a piece in 2 seasons) in all the time he's been in LA. I feel weird knocking him based on that.

Further thoughts?

[andrewww]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I was the one who used "fluky", so if we're using it to mean two different things, then you're the one still missing the point.

I do get your confusion though because I alluded to the upset which made it seem like the upset was what I was referring to when in reality I was referring to that Heat team being trash compared to a typical champion. In normal years, a team like that doesn't win the title. Simple as that.

Re: not necessarily. Look LeBron was the better player in general so for Wade to win Finals MVP LeBron had to play good but not too good, bad but not too bad. It could have happened but we shouldn't be acting like it was it was somehow bizarre Wade missed out on the Finals MVP. Realistically, if they play the series 20 times, Wade maybe only wins the Finals MVP once or twice.

But as I believe you and I have both said, the important thing is the quality of play not the award. I respect how Wade played quite a bit and I've left an opening multiple times for people to argue for Wade based on the significance of his ability to pick up his motor for short bursts just as I've left openings for potentially taking down Paul. Still waiting on those things to happen, but I welcome people looking to do so.

In 2011, Lebron and Wade were essentially interchangeable up until the Finals with a dynamic similar to what the 2001 Lakers had with Shaq/Kobe. It was match up dependent.

IMO Wade had outplayed Lebron significantly enough where if you replay that series over 20 times under the assumption Lebron raises his play a little bit more, I'm very confident Wade wins FMVP more than twice assuming the Heat prevail.

I would also argue Wade's 2005 playoff run was equally if not even more impressive than his 2006 run. His prime seasons were really any of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

[Dr Positivity]

Posts on Pettit, Stockton, Mikan, Nash, Wade, Durant, Baylor, Curry, Ewing from last thread:

Spoiler:

Bob Pettit - Case for: Considered legit megastar status in his time, 2x MVP. Solid longevity, an all-star for all his 11 seasons and in his prime for roughly 9 of those. Excellent rebounder. Likely posted outstanding offensive rebound numbers. ATG great big at getting to line. Floor spacing big. Solid playoff performer including big performance to win title. Still a superstar in early-mid 60s, which likely means he’d have translated to late 60s and expansion diluted 70s. Great intangibles, played hard every single minute and great toughness. Slightly above average defense at a big man position would still add value. Case against: Scoring efficiency for his era is above average but not freakish. Doesn’t appear to be an elite defender. Lacks post prime years. An offensive driven player at big man which is a less offensive position than perimeter players in contention here.

George Mikan - Case for: Dominance in his time is only matched by players in the top 5. Including his NBL years, has a 8 year competitive prime longevity to other candidates here. The best defensive player in the league at the most defensive position C. Did everything you could ask him to do. Case against: Benefitted from lesser competition and unrefined style of game. Even within the shotclock era, peaked earlier when the competition was presumably worse. Not a perfect offensive player of his era. Plays least offensive position in C and passed by pre shot clock players offensively such as Cousy, pre War Arizin, Johnston. When taking into account weaker competition, may have one of weaker offensive cases in contention for this spot.

Steve Nash - Case for: As with Pettit, rated a legit superstar in his prime as shown by multiple MVPs. Has a reasonable 8 seasons of longevity in Phoenix alone. Spectacular ORAPM in Phoenix, elite offensive player at most offensive position PG. Makes All-NBA teams in Dallas so those are hardly irrelevant years. Good portability, great intangibles. Quality playoff performer. Case against: A weak defender, hurts even at PG. RAPM lukewarm on Dallas version which hurts overall superstar longevity. In Phoenix not an elite overall boxscore performer, with WS and BPM not supporting his case as a superstar.

Dwyane Wade - Case for: Elite peak, reaching top of league in RAPM in 06 and coming close other times. Top level playoff record carrying his team in 06 and other successes like 11 Finals and 10 first round. Awesome offensive skillset playing a valuable role as a penetrating creator, as one of the greatest slashers and great passer for his position. Good defender. Case against: Weak longevity after injuries, only 5-6 prime years. Average portability as a non 3pt shooter.

Kevin Durant - Case for: Elite, MVP caliber peak. ATG portability, due to both his off ball game and defensive potential when he is able to save energy. Good teammate. Good playoff performer including big Finals MVP performance. Good playmaker and rebounder. Case against: Removing first two years where his impact stats sucked and his foot injury year, a little light in longevity side in 7 other seasons. Not truly embraced by RAPM/RPM compared to his boxscore stats.

Elgin Baylor - Case for: Huge peak for his time as a scorer, rebounder and passer. In his prime a good playoff performer and a shot from carrying Lakers to championship in 62. Continued to be rated as an all-star, 1st team All NBA and top 10 MVP vote guy the rest of the 60s with rebounding and passing helping make up for shooting efficiency. Case against: Prime cut short at about 4 years due to injury. Declines after his injury and while continues to be an all-star, never ranks in top 10 in WS again after 63 due to shooting % issues. Takes a lot of shots on a team with a better offensive player.

Stephen Curry - Case for: Arguably the best peak left on the board. Truly amazing offensive impact in his prime years due to the floor warping impact of his shooting along with his boxscore production. The most valuable player on 2 champions. Solid defender. Great intangibles. Case against: Very weak longevity compared to other candidates. About 4 season prime, 3 at best player in the league level. Wasn’t his GOAT level regular season self in the 2016 playoffs possibly due to injury. Not much defensive impact between good not great play, and playing PG.

Patrick Ewing - Case for: Great defensive center at the most defensive position gives him high baseline of value. Solid decade long prime and a good player as a rookie on. Made it to Game 7 of Finals with pretty weak team and overall had bad luck running into Jordan Bulls. High effort level, the sweat gawd. Some floor spacing value. Case against: Not a natural offensive player at least offensive position. Mediocre passer. Despite solid offensive numbers, few believe in his impact on that end.

Chris Paul - Case for: Superb advanced stats. One of the best boxscore peaks left and a very strong RAPM/RPM performer. Plays an offensive role in ballhandling, creating guard and is one of the best at it with his passing, shot creating, non turnover play. Excellent defensive PG. Quality playoff performer and his skillset translates against tough defenses. A solid 8-9 year prime and then some other decent years, gives him more longevity than options like Durant, Curry, Wade. Case against: Injury prone, getting banged up has cost his team in the playoffs and has several 60 game-ish seasons in his prime. Questionable leadership, he didn't gel with Blake and Deandre and Clippers lockerroom has been said to be "complicated". Orchestra conductor who yells at you if you don't mess up like Oscar. In several of biggest playoff moments as his team is choking was sitting idly by.

Scottie Pippen - Case for: All time great wing defender at a position with solid defensive value gives him a baseline. Players who dribble and pass well for their position tend to have quality offensive value. Solid longevity. Quality playoff performer. Without Jordan put up a great season and was in MVP convo. Good portability, he played beside a star who he wasn't a good fit with offensively and still had a terrific career. Has good ORAPM in late 90s, defense rated as ok but at his age a decline is probably expected. Case against: Rated on tier below MVP level players on his time by peers and the ultimate "2nd banana". Good not elite scorer and overall offensive skillset.

Isiah Thomas - Case for: Great playoff performer who coming up big had a lot to do with Detroit 2x titles. Plays high value offensive role as high assist creating guard. At peak is rated by peers as the 2nd best PG in the game hands down. Is credited with helping make Detroit into a winner culturally. Ability to create his own shot useful at end of game and big playoff moments. Case against: Mediocre efficiency and turnover prone. Non elite defender. His role as "alpha on a champion" is not supported by either the stats or award voting whether he barely makes a blip in either MVP or All-NBA despite MVP voting typically being all over the best offensive player on the best team. Idea that he tanked his mid 80s form to fit in his team doesn't show up in stats as he continued to shoot as much in championship years.

John Havlicek - Case for: Elite, Stockton-esque longevity and durability. Great portability as he played multiple roles in support during Russell era to star on his own team. Great defender at a solid defensive position, and good passer. Great intangibles and all time effort level on the court guy to set an example. Decorated big game playoff career. Case against: Not rated an MVP caliber player in his own time peaking at 4th/5th, and Cowens was considered best player of the title teams. His 28-29ppg seasons are highly inflated by pace and minutes. Per possession they're sub peak Pippen and Marion in scoring volume. Scoring efficiency concerns throughout his career.

Vote: Bob Pettit

Pettit both has an MVP caliber peak in his time and has a quality decade of longevity, for the other players there's more of a trade-off between peak and longevity. Pettit may not be elite on D but his offensive career is higher than some of the best defenders on above list like Mikan, Ewing, Pippen.

2nd: Steve Nash

[Dr Positivity]

2) Paul's injuries potentially being something that is simply a part of his body come April, and thus dinging him compared to other players (and in particular, other guys his size).

Virtually all the top defensive guards of this generation (Paul, Beverley, Rubio, Holiday, Lowry, Rondo, Tony Allen, Wade) has been injury prone. Why this happens and players like Stockton and Payton never missed a game when they were making more physical contact with their opponent, I have no idea.

[Doctor MJ]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I was the one who used "fluky", so if we're using it to mean two different things, then you're the one still missing the point.

I do get your confusion though because I alluded to the upset which made it seem like the upset was what I was referring to when in reality I was referring to that Heat team being trash compared to a typical champion. In normal years, a team like that doesn't win the title. Simple as that.

Re: not necessarily. Look LeBron was the better player in general so for Wade to win Finals MVP LeBron had to play good but not too good, bad but not too bad. It could have happened but we shouldn't be acting like it was it was somehow bizarre Wade missed out on the Finals MVP. Realistically, if they play the series 20 times, Wade maybe only wins the Finals MVP once or twice.

But as I believe you and I have both said, the important thing is the quality of play not the award. I respect how Wade played quite a bit and I've left an opening multiple times for people to argue for Wade based on the significance of his ability to pick up his motor for short bursts just as I've left openings for potentially taking down Paul. Still waiting on those things to happen, but I welcome people looking to do so.

In 2011, Lebron and Wade were essentially interchangeable up until the Finals with a dynamic similar to what the 2001 Lakers had with Shaq/Kobe. It was match up dependent.

IMO Wade had outplayed Lebron significantly enough where if you replay that series over 20 times under the assumption Lebron raises his play a little bit more, I'm very confident Wade wins FMVP more than twice assuming the Heat prevail.

I would also argue Wade's 2005 playoff run was equally if not even more impressive than his 2006 run. His prime seasons were really any of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Hmm. So I'm someone who traditionally has rated Wade above LeBron for that year, so...I guess you could say, I think I get it.

But they weren't interchangeable. No one had any doubt who was higher on lists going into those finals, and beyond that, LeBron had simply been asked to give a lot more in the sense that particularly in the playoffs, he was just plain playing a lot more minutes.

My argument for Wade over LeBron has always been that Wade was the better player for the Heat in the two most important series, and that in the rest of the year they could have gotten by with less. I think that argument still makes sense for rating players based on what they actually accomplished over the course of the year, but it was always taken as a given in the argument that it was only a debate because LeBron didn't play up to his potential at key times, not that Wade might actually be the better player in general.

Some of what we're debating here when it comes to a theoretical "replay" of the series is how LeBron responds. You could argue that LeBron at that time would get rattled every single time by Dallas' strategy so profoundly that there was never any way out of it.

But really what I was getting at is that if players just have a normal variance in their play, there is a very, very narrow window in which Wade is the best player on the winning team. If LeBron plays at his best, he's the better player. If LeBron plays poorly, the Heat lose. So pining for the possibility of LeBron being just a bit better but not too much better seems a bit silly to me.

Re: Wade's prime seasons. I don't have my spreadsheet in front of me but that's actually a major part of the problem. Wade had about half a dozen seasons as a relevant superstar. It's not just that Paul has more than that. Durant has more than that, and Curry has almost matched it.

Had Wade had a normal arc continuing to be relevant into his 30s, he'd already be voted in by now, instead is superstar duration is already being matched by guys who feel like they are just getting started. I think this should be hurting Wade more than it seems to be.

[Dr Spaceman]

Maybe people could lay that out in more detail for me.

To me Paul has been a consistent superstar when he plays for quite a while now, so adding up injuries doesn't really make much of a dent, but an argument that can convince me that his body naturally breaks down late in the season might.

Sure thing. I've talked in other places on the board about how I don't think Paul's body can hold up to NBA basketball, and forgot not everybody reads every post

Taking a cross-section of his Clippers' career, his hamstring (slash hip flexor slash groin) has hampered him almost every playoffs he's been in a Clippers uniform, and he's now broken or sprained a hand 3 times by getting it caught in an opponents' jersey. Now I'm not a physical therapist, but it's clear to me that repeated injuries to the lower core and upper legs are a problem of overuse. As far as the hand thing, it's just weird that it keeps happening the same way. Plenty of guys play ball for ears and never have that injury.

2012: sprained middle finger and sprained right hip flexor, a continuation of a groin injury which happened in game 80. Source: http://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/id/7914423/nba-playoffs-blake-griffin-chris-paul-injuries-hurt-clippers-chances

Spoiler:

In the first quarter, Paul jammed the middle finger on his right hand. Though Paul, as usual, denied that the injury had any adverse affect on his play, he was quiet through much of the game. At halftime, he had five points on 1-for-5 shooting with only a single assist -- very un-Paul-ish production.

In the fourth quarter, fears that Paul was less than 100 percent were exacerbated when he could be seen hobbling and holding his midsection. The initial prognosis was that he had aggravated the groin injury that kept him out of the Clippers' final two regular-season games. As it turned out, Paul had strained his right hip flexor.

"I felt a little sharp pain in my leg," he said. "I'll be all right."

Paul clearly wasn't, because he alternated dribbles with clutches to his right hip. How debilitated was Paul? Williams was assigned to guard the ball during the closing minutes. Clippers coach Vinny Del Negro ultimately pulled Paul from the game with 1:24 remaining and his team trailing by eight points.

2013: Paul bruises thumb in Quincy Pondexter's jersey against Grizzlies, leaves game. Source:http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/9232581/2013-nba-playoffs-chris-paul-los-angeles-clippers-hurt-thumb-blake-griffin-x-rays-clean

2014: Bruised thumb and hamstring issues against GSW, Doc thinks it's hurting his play. Source: https://www.google.cz/amp/www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-clippers-chris-paul-injuries-20140503-story,amp.html

Spoiler:

Paul's numbers had decreased across the board before Game 7.

His scoring average had slid from 19.1 points in the regular season to 16.7 in the first six playoff games. His assists were down from 10.7 to 8.2 a game, and his shooting accuracy had dropped from 46.7% in the regular season to 40.2% in the first six playoff games.

Paul's coach was, yeah, slightly concerned about him before Game 7.

"He just can't get away from anybody offensively," Doc Rivers said, more concerned about the strained hamstring than the sore thumb. "When you watch him in film, he really struggles where he's great on the [isolations], especially on the elbows, he just can't get away from anybody."

2015: well publicized hamstring injury in game 7 against SAS, misses Games 1 and 2 vs HOU

2016: Well publicized broken hand against Portland in game 3

2017: none that I'm aware of.

So in 6 seasons with he Clippers, he's been limited by a hamstring or hand or both in 5 of them. I don't know if the same injury reoccurring every year is what you're looking for here, but it's there.

Great post, and yeah thank you for repeating what you missed.

Hopefully I've been clear: I'm not really a fan of Paul. I think people who use negative leadership have far worse effects than almost anyone realizes. But I want to make sure my philosophy doesn't bias me against Paul here, and while you gave me pretty much what I asked, I'm still on the fence.

As I look more at his playoff performances numbers, basically when he plays on average (which includes some injuries) his numbers are great, and he's only missed a grand total of 4 games in the playoffs (which occurred 2 games a piece in 2 seasons) in all the time he's been in LA. I feel weird knocking him based on that.

Further thoughts?

Well sure, but those four missed games account for 2 lost series. Houston looked so dead in the water before game 6 in 2015, I sincerely doubt the Clippers take more than 5 games to wrap them up with a healthy Paul, and they were clearly the well superior team in 2016 as well.

It's funny because I'm actually probably more a fan of Paul than you are, but his health history seriously downgrades him from being a candidate in my book.

Now as far as the earlier years, you're right, he didn't miss any games. But in 2012, 2014, and 2015, the Clippers' first round series went 7 games, and then LAC lost in the second round. Now a lot do this comes down to seeding and luck. The Clippers were incredibly unlucky both in 14 and 15 that they happened to draw some of the best teams in the West despite being seeded 3. But at the same time, when you have a focal star who is slated to miss 15 games each season,it makes you wonder what could've happened had the Clippers grabbed 2 or 1.

Now in 2012 Paul of course played in all 7 games and the Clips gutted it out to go on and get swept by San An. But does the Grizzlies series go 7 if Chris doesn't have, say, a 19 point, 4 assist/3 TO night on 5/11 shooting and a -8 in game 5? Or an 11 point, 7 assist on 4/9 shooting performance in game 6? Remember, both of those were in the midst of the hamstring injury and Paul scored in the 20s in games 1,3 and 4.

How about 2014? Once again, in game 4 Paul has 16 points and 6 assists against 4 turnovers and 5/9 shooting and a minus 7 for the game. Game 6 is a 9 point, 3 of 10 shooting performance with 8 assists and 4 TO. There's the hamstring again.

There are plenty of other reasons why LAC lost besides Paul's health, with number one being Griffin who has a far worse case of this disease. But I get the feeling Los Angeles would've fared far better in some second round matchups if it weren't for Paul playing through these injuries.

[Outside]

Late to the party this thread, getting my vote in before it closes.

Vote: Baylor
Alternate: Mikan

Baylor was the original spectacular basketball player, the progenitor of Dr. J, Jordan, and all the high-fliers who came after. His stats are inflated by the fast pace of the time, but his per-36-minute career averages of 24.6 points/12.2 rebounds/3.9 assists (RS) and 23.7 points/11.3 rebounds/3.5 assists (PS) are impressive for any era.

Wade has the early lead in this thread, so I'll address why I pick Baylor over Wade. Longevity is one of Baylor's weaknesses, but he actually has better longevity than Wade to this point: 33,863 minutes vs 32,352 for Wade. Both players saw a drop in impact in the second half of their careers due to knee issues, but Baylor retained greater impact. Wade suffers from poor range in a three-point era, which is particularly a negative for a shooting guard. On the other hand, Baylor didn't play with a three-point line, so it's somewhat of an apples/oranges thing, but Baylor had fewer deficiencies for his position and era compared to Wade.

Edit: Wade has more playoff games than Baylor, but that's due to the difference in number or playoff rounds between the two eras. Baylor has a more impressive streak of era dominance in playoff performance, leading the league in playoff scoring for four seasons. Baylor was also top 10 in MVP shares eight times, including top 5 seven times, while Wade was top 10 five times and top 5 only twice.

I'm picking Mikan over Wade due to era dominance. I downgrade Mikan for longevity and strength of era, but we're in the range where he deserves to be placed.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Hey, I'm still on the Mikan train, with Wade as my #2. looks like wade will win though, which is again fine, because realistically if I had not thrown in my hat for respecting Mikan's GOATness, my order through these ranges normally goes Stockton --> Wade --> Pippen, although Durant has to have a shot here soon, submissive wuss or not.

[trex_8063]

fwiw, I'm thinking of switching my 2ndary vote (especially considering Ewing or Durant). But it's not going to matter for this thread.

Thru post #92 (24 votes, requiring 13 for a majority):

Dwyane Wade - 8 (2klegend, CodeBreaker, Joao Saraiva, JordansBulls, mischievous, pandrade83, trex_8063, twolves97)
George Mikan - 5 (penbeast0, Winsome Gerbil, janmagn, JoeMalburg, wojoaderge)
Bob Pettit - 4 (Doctor MJ, Dr Positivity, Pablo Novi, scabbarista)
Elgin Baylor - 2 (euroleague, Outside)
Chris Paul - 1 (Bad Gatorade)
Kevin Durant - 1 (andrewww)
Patrick Ewing - 1 (Hornet Mania)
Stephen Curry - 1 (oldschooled)
Scottie Pippen - 1 (RCM88x)

Eliminating all five of Pau/Durant/Ewing/Curry/Pippen with the lowest 1st-place votes. Transferring the 2nd votes adds one for Wade, one for Mikan, one for Baylor, and two for Pettit:

Wade - 9
Mikan - 6
Pettit - 6
Baylor - 3

Still no majority, so Baylor is eliminated. One 2nd vote was for Durant (now a ghost vote), and one transfers to Mikan......

Wade - 9
Mikan - 7
Pettit - 6

Still no majority, so Pettit is eliminated; ALL of his secondary votes become ghost votes (having been for Baylor, Paul, Nash, and Havlicek), leaving new totals at:

Wade - 9
Mikan - 7

Wade is default winner here. Will have #23 thread up soon......

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Doctor MJ]

Sure thing. I've talked in other places on the board about how I don't think Paul's body can hold up to NBA basketball, and forgot not everybody reads every post

Taking a cross-section of his Clippers' career, his hamstring (slash hip flexor slash groin) has hampered him almost every playoffs he's been in a Clippers uniform, and he's now broken or sprained a hand 3 times by getting it caught in an opponents' jersey. Now I'm not a physical therapist, but it's clear to me that repeated injuries to the lower core and upper legs are a problem of overuse. As far as the hand thing, it's just weird that it keeps happening the same way. Plenty of guys play ball for ears and never have that injury.

2012: sprained middle finger and sprained right hip flexor, a continuation of a groin injury which happened in game 80. Source: http://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/id/7914423/nba-playoffs-blake-griffin-chris-paul-injuries-hurt-clippers-chances

Spoiler:

In the first quarter, Paul jammed the middle finger on his right hand. Though Paul, as usual, denied that the injury had any adverse affect on his play, he was quiet through much of the game. At halftime, he had five points on 1-for-5 shooting with only a single assist -- very un-Paul-ish production.

In the fourth quarter, fears that Paul was less than 100 percent were exacerbated when he could be seen hobbling and holding his midsection. The initial prognosis was that he had aggravated the groin injury that kept him out of the Clippers' final two regular-season games. As it turned out, Paul had strained his right hip flexor.

"I felt a little sharp pain in my leg," he said. "I'll be all right."

Paul clearly wasn't, because he alternated dribbles with clutches to his right hip. How debilitated was Paul? Williams was assigned to guard the ball during the closing minutes. Clippers coach Vinny Del Negro ultimately pulled Paul from the game with 1:24 remaining and his team trailing by eight points.

2013: Paul bruises thumb in Quincy Pondexter's jersey against Grizzlies, leaves game. Source:http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/9232581/2013-nba-playoffs-chris-paul-los-angeles-clippers-hurt-thumb-blake-griffin-x-rays-clean

2014: Bruised thumb and hamstring issues against GSW, Doc thinks it's hurting his play. Source: https://www.google.cz/amp/www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-clippers-chris-paul-injuries-20140503-story,amp.html

Spoiler:

Paul's numbers had decreased across the board before Game 7.

His scoring average had slid from 19.1 points in the regular season to 16.7 in the first six playoff games. His assists were down from 10.7 to 8.2 a game, and his shooting accuracy had dropped from 46.7% in the regular season to 40.2% in the first six playoff games.

Paul's coach was, yeah, slightly concerned about him before Game 7.

"He just can't get away from anybody offensively," Doc Rivers said, more concerned about the strained hamstring than the sore thumb. "When you watch him in film, he really struggles where he's great on the [isolations], especially on the elbows, he just can't get away from anybody."

2015: well publicized hamstring injury in game 7 against SAS, misses Games 1 and 2 vs HOU

2016: Well publicized broken hand against Portland in game 3

2017: none that I'm aware of.

So in 6 seasons with he Clippers, he's been limited by a hamstring or hand or both in 5 of them. I don't know if the same injury reoccurring every year is what you're looking for here, but it's there.

Great post, and yeah thank you for repeating what you missed.

Hopefully I've been clear: I'm not really a fan of Paul. I think people who use negative leadership have far worse effects than almost anyone realizes. But I want to make sure my philosophy doesn't bias me against Paul here, and while you gave me pretty much what I asked, I'm still on the fence.

As I look more at his playoff performances numbers, basically when he plays on average (which includes some injuries) his numbers are great, and he's only missed a grand total of 4 games in the playoffs (which occurred 2 games a piece in 2 seasons) in all the time he's been in LA. I feel weird knocking him based on that.

Further thoughts?

Well sure, but those four missed games account for 2 lost series. Houston looked so dead in the water before game 6 in 2015, I sincerely doubt the Clippers take more than 5 games to wrap them up with a healthy Paul, and they were clearly the well superior team in 2016 as well.

It's funny because I'm actually probably more a fan of Paul than you are, but his health history seriously downgrades him from being a candidate in my book.

Now as far as the earlier years, you're right, he didn't miss any games. But in 2012, 2014, and 2015, the Clippers' first round series went 7 games, and then LAC lost in the second round. Now a lot do this comes down to seeding and luck. The Clippers were incredibly unlucky both in 14 and 15 that they happened to draw some of the best teams in the West despite being seeded 3. But at the same time, when you have a focal star who is slated to miss 15 games each season,it makes you wonder what could've happened had the Clippers grabbed 2 or 1.

Now in 2012 Paul of course played in all 7 games and the Clips gutted it out to go on and get swept by San An. But does the Grizzlies series go 7 if Chris doesn't have, say, a 19 point, 4 assist/3 TO night on 5/11 shooting and a -8 in game 5? Or an 11 point, 7 assist on 4/9 shooting performance in game 6? Remember, both of those were in the midst of the hamstring injury and Paul scored in the 20s in games 1,3 and 4.

How about 2014? Once again, in game 4 Paul has 16 points and 6 assists against 4 turnovers and 5/9 shooting and a minus 7 for the game. Game 6 is a 9 point, 3 of 10 shooting performance with 8 assists and 4 TO. There's the hamstring again.

There are plenty of other reasons why LAC lost besides Paul's health, with number one being Griffin who has a far worse case of this disease. But I get the feeling Los Angeles would've fared far better in some second round matchups if it weren't for Paul playing through these injuries.

Hmm. See I see the loss to Houston through luck and psychological terms.

The Clippers had Houston beat, Harden was on the bench moping. Then a couple mediocre shooting scrubs caught fire and the Clippers seemed flat footed and unable to respond either in Game 6 or 7. Yes they were tired, but when a team is in an unexpected Game 7 due to something not going there way, there's a tendency to just play poorly. Sure they feel tired, but they FEEL it a hell of a lot more because of the wind of momentum blowing in the other direction.

Let's note also that Paul didn't miss the end of the series. He missed the first 2 games, and the decision to miss the second sure seemed informed by the fact that the Clippers won the first game on the road with ease.

So yeah, to me that's the year people really focus on in damning Paul for underachieving and I don't think it makes sense. He was great against the Spurs, they rested him after that in part because they could, and then the team lost for reasons that to me don't seem entirely physical.

What about the next year? Well, the Clippers lost both Paul and Griffin at the same time. I grant you that that's clearly a Paul injury contributing to a series loss, but with Griffin out the entire rest of the post-season, they were dead in the water anyway. They weren't going to get past the 2nd round.

Also, when i say Paul did well when he played in the playoffs, just for perspective for folks. The all-time best WS/48 playoff performers are:

1. Jordan
2. Mikan
3. LeBron
4. Kawhi
5. Paul

Now, box score stats overrate Paul compared to other pass-first point guards and I don't mean to claim otherwise, but I really feel like even amongst us who refused to go by "ringz" style arguments, we see Paul as a disappointment intuitively because he hasn't gone as far as it seems like he should. And while that was certainly true in 2015, I just don't see it elsewhere. The west has had very tough competition basically the entire time Paul has been around.

I would venture to say that if Paul played in the east and Kidd only in the west, Paul would be seen considerably strong and Kidd wouldn't really be talked about much at all at this stage. (Granted as I say this, the PC board has largely already recognized this, but I'm suggesting that we might still be biased in the same direction casual fans are.)

Still on the fence though, and appreciating your thoughts. You make good points and I too find myself skeptical of Paul.

[Senior]

Hmm. See I see the loss to Houston through luck and psychological terms.

The Clippers had Houston beat, Harden was on the bench moping. Then a couple mediocre shooting scrubs caught fire and the Clippers seemed flat footed and unable to respond either in Game 6 or 7. Yes they were tired, but when a team is in an unexpected Game 7 due to something not going there way, there's a tendency to just play poorly. Sure they feel tired, but they FEEL it a hell of a lot more because of the wind of momentum blowing in the other direction.

Let's note also that Paul didn't miss the end of the series. He missed the first 2 games, and the decision to miss the second sure seemed informed by the fact that the Clippers won the first game on the road with ease.

So yeah, to me that's the year people really focus on in damning Paul for underachieving and I don't think it makes sense. He was great against the Spurs, they rested him after that in part because they could, and then the team lost for reasons that to me don't seem entirely physical.

The thing is, Houston in the Harden era has been a streaky team. Their philosophy of 3 + layups is feast or famine, and they caught feast in Game 6. But they already had their famine in Games 3-4. Smoove and Brewer especially had awful shooting series overall; Smoove was at 48% TS, Brewer at 47% TS. Yes, they caught fire for one quarter but they were barely doing anything on the offensive end for 6 other games. The Clippers already caught huge breaks with Houston basically forgetting how to play basketball for 4 games and getting away with resting their superstar for 2 games because they split on the road without him (can you imagine a team like the Heat sitting Lebron for 2 games against say, the 2013 Spurs?). They had no excuse to not close out the Rockets.

By every conceivable impact metric, the Clippers should've gotten destroyed when Paul only played 49 minutes out of 192 over 4 games against a 56 win team such as Houston; instead they were up 3-1. Some of it was Houston was hitting their famine, some of it was LAC playing over their heads. But they were already in an amazing position to close out a team that had HCA (and you could even argue that the Rockets were WORSE due to the SRS difference; 6.80 for LAC, 3.82 for HOU although Dwight missed half the season) Then Paul starts rounding into shape (the 26/10 over Games 5-7 thing) and Houston somehow wins 3 straight games by double digits, one of which they staged a ridiculous comeback in. Somehow LAC fell apart as CP3 played better. Is this not the opposite of impact?

I don't mean to put it all on CP3, but when two halves of this series are so drastically different as an impact god starts to play *that* much better, something's wrong. Small sample size to be sure, and both teams are streaky (Houston more so) but...what happened? It's not just the Game 6 because sometimes a perfect storm just drowns teams, but Games 5 and 7 as well. At the start of the series, if you looked at the Clippers and Rockets W-L, it wouldn't be crazy to say HOU in 7, especially if you knew that CP3 was going to miss the first two games. But it's how the series played out that makes me say he and his team underachieved - they had everything going for them by Game 5 and didn't get it done.

[Doctor MJ]

Hmm. See I see the loss to Houston through luck and psychological terms.

The Clippers had Houston beat, Harden was on the bench moping. Then a couple mediocre shooting scrubs caught fire and the Clippers seemed flat footed and unable to respond either in Game 6 or 7. Yes they were tired, but when a team is in an unexpected Game 7 due to something not going there way, there's a tendency to just play poorly. Sure they feel tired, but they FEEL it a hell of a lot more because of the wind of momentum blowing in the other direction.

Let's note also that Paul didn't miss the end of the series. He missed the first 2 games, and the decision to miss the second sure seemed informed by the fact that the Clippers won the first game on the road with ease.

So yeah, to me that's the year people really focus on in damning Paul for underachieving and I don't think it makes sense. He was great against the Spurs, they rested him after that in part because they could, and then the team lost for reasons that to me don't seem entirely physical.

The thing is, Houston in the Harden era has been a streaky team. Their philosophy of 3 + layups is feast or famine, and they caught feast in Game 6. But they already had their famine in Games 3-4. Smoove and Brewer especially had awful shooting series overall; Smoove was at 48% TS, Brewer at 47% TS. Yes, they caught fire for one quarter but they were barely doing anything on the offensive end for 6 other games. The Clippers already caught huge breaks with Houston basically forgetting how to play basketball for 4 games and getting away with resting their superstar for 2 games because they split on the road without him (can you imagine a team like the Heat sitting Lebron for 2 games against say, the 2013 Spurs?). They had no excuse to not close out the Rockets.

By every conceivable impact metric, the Clippers should've gotten destroyed when Paul only played 49 minutes out of 192 over 4 games against a 56 win team such as Houston; instead they were up 3-1. Some of it was Houston was hitting their famine, some of it was LAC playing over their heads. But they were already in an amazing position to close out a team that had HCA (and you could even argue that the Rockets were WORSE due to the SRS difference; 6.80 for LAC, 3.82 for HOU although Dwight missed half the season) Then Paul starts rounding into shape (the 26/10 over Games 5-7 thing) and Houston somehow wins 3 straight games by double digits, one of which they staged a ridiculous comeback in. Somehow LAC fell apart as CP3 played better. Is this not the opposite of impact?

I don't mean to put it all on CP3, but when two halves of this series are so drastically different as an impact god starts to play *that* much better, something's wrong. Small sample size to be sure, and both teams are streaky (Houston more so) but...what happened? It's not just the Game 6 because sometimes a perfect storm just drowns teams, but Games 5 and 7 as well. At the start of the series, if you looked at the Clippers and Rockets W-L, it wouldn't be crazy to say HOU in 7, especially if you knew that CP3 was going to miss the first two games. But it's how the series played out that makes me say he and his team underachieved - they had everything going for them by Game 5 and didn't get it done.

Thing is, none of us were taking Houston seriously from what we'd seen to that point, and so it really didn't come as a terrible shock when they seemed instantly outclassed by the Clippers.

I actually think the series is the case in point for why you get diminishing returns as you lengthen series in terms of weeding out luck. The Clippers basically coasted the entire series until late in Game 6 when Houston became a severe threat, and at that point the Clippers didn't seem to be able to flip the switch.

I think it's absolutely fair to knock Paul for being a part of that loss, but I think it's dangerous to try to generalize about the value of Paul based on how the team did with and without him in it.

One more thing I'll add tho that's actually going in line with your point rather than mine:

I think Paul absolutely is the textbook example of someone who +/- overrates. He's a control freak who is good enough that he sets the team strategy and that strategy doesn't work without him. But given time to implement a different strategy, his teams are better than they at first appear without him.

If the Clippers have a healthy Blake Griffin next year and a consistent rest of the roster, I think they're going to be pretty good. I think Griffin will likely get a new wave of positive buzz, accolades, etc, and if Houston struggles out the gate everyone is going to jump on the bandwagon that says Paul was overrated. I do think though it's easy to overstate how much he's overrated.

The Clippers with Paul were an awesome team that probably would have trounced, say, the '06 Heat. There happened to be better teams in the west, so they got no further. That puts Paul below some, but not as much as the "he can't get out of the 2nd round!" crowd likes to think.

[trex_8063]

I think it's absolutely fair to knock Paul for being a part of that loss, but I think it's dangerous to try to generalize about the value of Paul based on how the team did with and without him in it.

deleted. Somehow didn't read the words "in it" on first pass, which sort of clears up what I was asking about.

[Senior]

Thing is, none of us were taking Houston seriously from what we'd seen to that point, and so it really didn't come as a terrible shock when they seemed instantly outclassed by the Clippers.

I actually think the series is the case in point for why you get diminishing returns as you lengthen series in terms of weeding out luck. The Clippers basically coasted the entire series until late in Game 6 when Houston became a severe threat, and at that point the Clippers didn't seem to be able to flip the switch.

I think it's absolutely fair to knock Paul for being a part of that loss, but I think it's dangerous to try to generalize about the value of Paul based on how the team did with and without him in it.

All fair. It is only three games, although some blame has to lie with the leadership of those teams for not taking the Rockets seriously and then not being able to finish them off when they needed to. Teams can't let their guard down for a second or else things like Game 6 happen and then anything can happen in a Game 7.

One more thing I'll add tho that's actually going in line with your point rather than mine:

I think Paul absolutely is the textbook example of someone who +/- overrates. He's a control freak who is good enough that he sets the team strategy and that strategy doesn't work without him. But given time to implement a different strategy, his teams are better than they at first appear without him.

If the Clippers have a healthy Blake Griffin next year and a consistent rest of the roster, I think they're going to be pretty good. I think Griffin will likely get a new wave of positive buzz, accolades, etc, and if Houston struggles out the gate everyone is going to jump on the bandwagon that says Paul was overrated. I do think though it's easy to overstate how much he's overrated.

It is definitely a fine line to walk because it's hard to ignore the numbers - and there's no real way to quantify the drop off to a "real" impact. Still, it's also hard to ignore the outcomes and it's also hard to ignore the lack of real playoff runs because both Blake and CP3 kept getting hurt.

I agree that LAC will probably look better and HOU will probably look worse for the first 20 or so games...but I think both regress to their mean.

The Clippers with Paul were an awesome team that probably would have trounced, say, the '06 Heat. There happened to be better teams in the west, so they got no further. That puts Paul below some, but not as much as the "he can't get out of the 2nd round!" crowd likes to think.

I'm not sure I agree with this - the 06 Heat had their own issues in the RS, they were at a 58 win pace with Shaq healthy, and they were 59-23 the year before. That would be better than anything the Clippers did in the RS (LAC had superior SRS by about 1-2 points but they topped out at 57 wins). Despite the conference differences, their RS results couldn't have been far off.

And in the end - the teams LAC lost to weren't the Spurs and Warriors. They lost to the Thunder and Rockets, good but roughly even teams and to be honest, I always felt that the Clippers were a step down from the truly elite teams of 14-15. They didn't have the top-end talent of the Thunder and Warriors and they didn't have the coaching/championship pedigree of the Spurs. The Spurs series in 2015 was their first truly impressive series win (first series they won against a team at least as good as them)

LAC could've beaten those 05-06 Heat teams but neither one is getting trounced, especially considering that the Wade/Shaq core was consistently more aggressive than the CP3/Blake one. If they faced each other in a playoff series, I think the Heat win. I can't see a Riley/Wade/Shaq team not taking teams seriously or coasting in a playoff series - they're looking for the kill ASAP.

[Doctor MJ]

The Clippers with Paul were an awesome team that probably would have trounced, say, the '06 Heat. There happened to be better teams in the west, so they got no further. That puts Paul below some, but not as much as the "he can't get out of the 2nd round!" crowd likes to think.

I'm not sure I agree with this - the 06 Heat had their own issues in the RS, they were at a 58 win pace with Shaq healthy, and they were 59-23 the year before. That would be better than anything the Clippers did in the RS (LAC had superior SRS by about 1-2 points but they topped out at 57 wins). Despite the conference differences, their RS results couldn't have been far off.

And in the end - the teams LAC lost to weren't the Spurs and Warriors. They lost to the Thunder and Rockets, good but roughly even teams and to be honest, I always felt that the Clippers were a step down from the truly elite teams of 14-15. They didn't have the top-end talent of the Thunder and Warriors and they didn't have the coaching/championship pedigree of the Spurs. The Spurs series in 2015 was their first truly impressive series win (first series they won against a team at least as good as them)

LAC could've beaten those 05-06 Heat teams but neither one is getting trounced, especially considering that the Wade/Shaq core was consistently more aggressive than the CP3/Blake one. If they faced each other in a playoff series, I think the Heat win. I can't see a Riley/Wade/Shaq team not taking teams seriously or coasting in a playoff series - they're looking for the kill ASAP.

Fair points.

1) Trounced is hyperbolic language and can't stand up to objection
2) The Clippers had a better peak SRS than those Heat and did so playing a style that works better in the current age...and while '05-06 was early in that age, that truth was true even then. So to me, the Clippers show all indications of being the better regular season team.
3) Lost to Thunder and Rockets. Well the Thunder were a better team than either of these teams, and I'm glad you mention the Spurs because they also were at least comparable to the Heat.
4) The Rockets remain an undeniable blemish. There are times when I find myself cheering against destructive narrative. The Clippers losing that series against Houston to me was first and foremost a fluke that reinforced unfair ideas. I bit like what happened with LeBron against Boston - he choked momentarily, but that didn't make the choker narrative he'd been saddled with as a fundamental attribute reasonable.
5) Can't see Riley/Wade/Shaq coasting. Shaq, coasting? I mean, that's basically what he did all the time. He had 3 modes: coast, kill, quit. He leapt from the first to 3rd quite quickly, as did Kobe, which was why they were both known for blowout defeats. I'll agree with you though that Wade is a killer. It's not just a personality thing though. Wade had a minimalistic game almost devoid of the need for high BBIQ much like young Jordan. When all you do is attack, you'll never look like a coaster. More intellectual games, like Paul's are more susceptible to other issues.

But still, fundamentally, teams coast in 7 game series and it's just a fact. When a team wins game 1 on the road, they almost always conserve energy in game 2, and do so thinking they are conserving energy for game 3. The maddening thing about it is that it's truly strategic, but if a team can't summon their A game at will it's dangerous. The thing is that I think almost all teams are prone to it, and case in point:

Why is it Jordan's Bulls never flirted with an undefeated post-season like we saw from the '83 76ers or the '01 Lakers or the Warriors last year? I really think it's to some degree because a championship is a championship, and even if you're Jordan, you don't want to wear yourself out prematurely.

[Senior]

2) The Clippers had a better peak SRS than those Heat and did so playing a style that works better in the current age...and while '05-06 was early in that age, that truth was true even then. So to me, the Clippers show all indications of being the better regular season team.

To be honest, this is probably true. Old Shaq was on full-coast mode in the RS, and I do believe that Paul is better suited to lead an RS offense than Wade, especially young Wade. However, the Heat were easily the better playoff team and showed it by knocking off better teams than the Clippers did despite contending just as short a time. I would rather have a team that gets better in the playoffs vs the RS than the opposite.

3) Lost to Thunder and Rockets. Well the Thunder were a better team than either of these teams, and I'm glad you mention the Spurs because they also were at least comparable to the Heat.

I agree with the Thunder. The Thunder were better AND had the favorable matchups against LAC (namely terrible perimeter defense vs Durant/Westbrook).

Spurs were a great champion albeit probably on a hot streak...fwiw I think the Spurs would've waxed the Clippers, but you never know until you play the series.

4) The Rockets remain an undeniable blemish. There are times when I find myself cheering against destructive narrative. The Clippers losing that series against Houston to me was first and foremost a fluke that reinforced unfair ideas. I bit like what happened with LeBron against Boston - he choked momentarily, but that didn't make the choker narrative he'd been saddled with as a fundamental attribute reasonable.

I don't want to make too much out of one series as you don't, but something similar happened in 2014. Although the Thunder were better, LAC was on a precipice of a 3-2 lead going back home for a closeout game - they could've upset the Thunder and faced SA had they not shot themselves in the head in Game 5 and blew Game 6 on their home floor. Not as egregious as the Houston series, but similarly bad because they were in great position to win the series.

Then he or Blake got hurt for the other 4 years. They did beat Memphis in 2012 so there's that.

5) Can't see Riley/Wade/Shaq coasting. Shaq, coasting? I mean, that's basically what he did all the time. He had 3 modes: coast, kill, quit. He leapt from the first to 3rd quite quickly, as did Kobe, which was why they were both known for blowout defeats. I'll agree with you though that Wade is a killer. It's not just a personality thing though. Wade had a minimalistic game almost devoid of the need for high BBIQ much like young Jordan. When all you do is attack, you'll never look like a coaster. More intellectual games, like Paul's are more susceptible to other issues.

With Shaq I always felt that he put the coasting thing aside in the playoffs and switched to more on the kill side. But old Shaq probably only saved his heavy artillery when his teams had their backs to the wall. Think you're right on him, had prime Shaq more on my mind. All business in the playoffs.

With Wade, despite his relative lack of options on offense vs Paul, fact remains that his style was always effective at creating his own offense at will, which is what those teams needed given their weak offensive depth. The Pistons and Mavs couldn't stop him no matter what, even when they knew he was gunning for the hoop most of the time. Paul is a more versatile scorer, and coasting doesn't seem like the right word, but he was a less effective playoff scorer than young Wade. A more intellectual, versatile game like Paul's would lead your team to better results over the RS, but a minimalistic, score-at-any cost such as young Wade's seems better suited for a playoff run when points can come at a premium. I can't see Wade not scoring at least a few times if he was in Paul's place in that Game 6, for example.

I guess it comes to this - which issues are more acceptable to you? Wade's worse shooting/floor generalship or Paul's desire to always create the smart play, even if it means he uses his superior scoring less? Against high-level defenses, I can't help but feel that Paul's scoring ability would be needed far more than he's willing to use it whereas young Wade can always get me points even if his passing and shooting is worse. Given their construction of those Heat teams (defensive depth such as Posey, Zo, Haslem, old Shaq who opens up driving lanes but can't dominate for 40 minutes, relatively weak offensive depth), a guy like Wade who can score and isn't hesitant to do so is what they needed.

But still, fundamentally, teams coast in 7 game series and it's just a fact. When a team wins game 1 on the road, they almost always conserve energy in game 2, and do so thinking they are conserving energy for game 3. The maddening thing about it is that it's truly strategic, but if a team can't summon their A game at will it's dangerous. The thing is that I think almost all teams are prone to it, and case in point:

Why is it Jordan's Bulls never flirted with an undefeated post-season like we saw from the '83 76ers or the '01 Lakers or the Warriors last year? I really think it's to some degree because a championship is a championship, and even if you're Jordan, you don't want to wear yourself out prematurely.

I'm not sure it has to do with "coasting", I think all those teams were giving 100% in the playoffs but near-undefeated teams had some breaks go their way that resulted in only 1 loss. 83 Sixers avoided Boston and the Lakers apart from Magic/Kareem were basically crippled in the Finals. 01 Lakers won 3 games vs the Kings by a combined 15 points. Last year's Warriors were by far the most stacked team and they basically avoided the Spurs who looked ready to steal Game 1 on the road. I'd say that they were by far the best teams in their respective years, they turned up the jets when they needed it, they were good enough to win the other 75% of games just by doing their thing, and they caught some breaks. No team is good enough to win at that percentage against playoff-level competition without catching some breaks - even the best ones of all time didn't do it.

I'm not sure the Bulls had this kind of luxury apart from 1991 (15-2) - with their worst East competition of any title year except 1996 and Magic's Lakers upsetting a better Portland team in the WCFs. I think they just lost to playoff-caliber teams. It happens. That said, I'm not saying it was impossible that the Bulls coasted but never enough for it to matter as far as the outcome was concerned.

Still, whether the Clippers were coasting after stealing HCA after Game 1 or not, they couldn't turn on the switch, or maybe their switch wasn't as good as they thought it was late in the series. Looking at Game 5, it's not crazy to think they approached that game as a house-money game - whatever happened that game didn't matter because they were going to close them out in Game 6 at home anyway. LAC was down 20 soon after the 3rd en route to a blowout loss. And honestly - maybe the switch came on for Game 6. LAC was up double digits in the 4th of that game before falling apart. Then a perfect storm of stuff happened and they lost. Then the switch didn't come on for Game 7.

Really, the switch mindset isn't something a non-title winning core should have anyway because they haven't proven that they can play at the level needed to win a title yet. Not even the players themselves believe they can win a title until it actually happens.