Redick: 'Donald Trump-Level Pettiness" Derailed Clippers

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

[Ranma]

This is a perfect illustration of why I don't want Corey Maggette to be the color commentator. He's bemoaning the lost chemistry between Griffin and Jordan when the key was the chemistry between Paul and Griffin, which eventually led to the downfall of Lob City.

Redick would be a great partner for Ralph if he were retired.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Quake Griffin]

Redick is the worst type of annoying. When you're done with a mistake/ failure, he's right there to bring it up over and over again like it's the most important topic of the day.

Maybe it's karma for Ballmer taking a run at his franchise when they are 2 GMs removed from Hinkie but....


GEEZ LOUISE!
It's over. Lob City is done. Everybody except Doc is in a new place. Move the eff on.

and STOP acting like we were Warriors talented and it was the chemistry ruined us. Give us all the chemistry in the world and the Warriors would have baptized us in 2015, 2016, and 2017.

[og15]

It certainly derailed them to some degree, but all that doesn't matter if your main guys are unhealthy. It wasn't a primary factor in derailing the 15-16 or 16-17 playoffs because one or both stars were out and that derailed those seasons.

Even in the regular seasons those years, there was a lot of missed games by the stars that derailed them.

There's this attempt to push chemistry as the big reason those Clippers teams didn't make it far, but the years they had good, or at least better chemistry they were; not good enough (11-12), Blake got injured (12-13), they lost to a slightly better team (13-14), and fatigue, Paul injury (could have won the series earlier instead negating the depth and fatigue effects), awful depth, and hot Josh Smith and Corey Brewer killed them (14-15).

How would better chemistry have solved the injury problems in either of those later seasons (15-16 and 16-17)? Better chemistry still wouldn't have changed the end result of the seasons

[wco81]

Maybe Paul should have done a State Farm commercial with Clippers teammates where they sing a Backstreet Boys song?

Is that what he means by chemistry?

They never had a legit wing those years and the small backcourt had some matchup problems in the playoffs.

[Quake Griffin]

Maybe Paul should have done a State Farm commercial with Clippers teammates where they sing a Backstreet Boys song?

Is that what he means by chemistry?

They never had a legit wing those years and the small backcourt had some matchup problems in the playoffs.

Exactly. It's so self serving to blame it on "chemistry".

Just lol. We weren't good enough.

[Max Headrom]

How about if either he, or Jamal showed up in the playoffs we could've advanced... Reddick is the Mike D'Antoni of shooting guards. Looks great in the regular season but trash in the playoffs

[og15]

Maybe Paul should have done a State Farm commercial with Clippers teammates where they sing a Backstreet Boys song?

Is that what he means by chemistry?

They never had a legit wing those years and the small backcourt had some matchup problems in the playoffs.

Exactly. It's so self serving to blame it on "chemistry".

Just lol. We weren't good enough.

Yea, if the team was getting the #1 seed yearly and flaming out, or healthy and losing to worse teams I can accept the chemistry reasoning, but they were a 3rd - 5th seed. A 3rd to 5th seed's expected finish on a yearly basis is 2nd round exit loesing to one of the top 2 teams. They beat the teams they should have beat, and even ones they weren't expected to beat (SA), and Houston was actually the only series people felt the Clippers were better, but the Clippers role players all disappeared in the final 3 games of that series while Houston's killed it. Injuries, fatigue and depth played a role as the longer the series went the worse it was for the Clippers.

I'm just not seeing what would have been solved in terms of winning more series' or being closer to a championship if the chemistry was better in 15-16 and 16-17. 15-16, you say "oh Blake wouldn't punch the trainer if he wasn't feeling unimportant as the team was winning without him", but the hand healed, it was his quad that was the lingering problem. 16-17, Paul and Blake both missed 20-ish games each, the team was 43-18 in the games Paul played, a pace for 58 wins. Anything over 55 would have given the Clippers the 3rd seed. A healthy Clippers blow through OKC, would have beat them still with Blake going down after 2.5 games, but with no Blake there's no chance vs SA. Even with healthy Blake, SA would be a very tough out, though the Clippers have always matched up well, but Blake had a non-contact injury, so something related to body stress, quite possible at that playoff intensity it could happen again, just like Paul's multiple hamstring injuries.

So yes, failing chemistry = not good, but the team didn't win more because it was not good enough / healthy enough, pointing to chemistry is trying to turn a blind eye to that reality. Redick himself was part of the not good enough, especially vs Utah where he couldn't even bring his offense and shooting. Jamal was more often than not a playoff disaster. Austin was even injured in 16-17, but otherwise was also a fairly consistently poor player. With how Paul carried them vs Utah, that was a winnable series if someone else actually showed up as a perimeter player for more than a quarter (Jamal in game 7), of course it was just leading to a second round massacre by GS, so it's not like it truly "mattered", still, just saying.

[Quake Griffin]

And one more thing I'll add.

I'm also not liking the optics of Redick becoming the guy in the group who gets to walk away as the professional, thoughtful, insightful, introspective one in all of it while the all stars that made this a 55+ win team are labeled some combination of: chokes, losers, not interested in winning, petty, egotistical, etc. etc.

Win as a team.
Lose as a team.
This is growing into a long, drawn out back door way of saying, "it's their fault..."

and again....the optics suck to me.

I'd rather just move on and have Redick move on.

[wco81]

Can't close the chapter until Doc is gone though, right?

[esqtvd]

keep the guy with the ring

Doc was the least of their problems

[Dahntay Jones was a part of the 2015 Clippers team that blew a 3-1 lead against the Houston Rockets; he saw the team at its absolute lowest. I asked him about egos getting in the way of success, and he said this:

“They weren’t at the right age to coexist together. As you get older you know how to put some of the egos aside, and learn how to work better with each other. There was a lot of talent, a lot of different personalities, but when you get older you learn how to make those things work. You push forward for a common cause, but they weren’t at the right age to do that.”

https://www.clipsnation.com/2018/8/17/17697506/dahntay-jones-on-clippers-werent-at-the-right-age-to-coexist-together


CP3 was my favorite Clipper of all time [I wish I could say IS] but I never saw a desire to make his teammates better and sublimate his game to the team the way he does now in Houston at age 30+.

Maybe he didn't think Blake deserved the deference Chris shows The Beard [and I wouldn't disagree], but the fact is, that's not championship basketball. I'm not saying Chris was a selfish player as a Clip, but he wasn't unselfish either the way he is with Houston.

As far as Doc's ring, yes, his Boston team was exactly at that "right age" where players, after being consistent all-NBAers, start thinking about rings. But no coach can get them to that place. Chris didn't get there until last year, and who can blame him for wanting to take his chances with Harden over Griffin?

[esqtvd]

It certainly derailed them to some degree, but all that doesn't matter if your main guys are unhealthy. It wasn't a primary factor in derailing the 15-16 or 16-17 playoffs because one or both stars were out and that derailed those seasons.

Even in the regular seasons those years, there was a lot of missed games by the stars that derailed them.

There's this attempt to push chemistry as the big reason those Clippers teams didn't make it far, but the years they had good, or at least better chemistry they were; not good enough (11-12), Blake got injured (12-13), they lost to a slightly better team (13-14), and fatigue, Paul injury (could have won the series earlier instead negating the depth and fatigue effects), awful depth, and hot Josh Smith and Corey Brewer killed them (14-15).

How would better chemistry have solved the injury problems in either of those later seasons (15-16 and 16-17)? Better chemistry still wouldn't have changed the end result of the seasons

Yes, the injuries were ridiculous. You could end the discussion there. But I don't think our leader(s) led, Chris Paul in particular. I think he's in that class of HOFers--Barkley, Melo, Westbrook, Harden, [and I'd say even Dr. J]--who didn't really make their teammates better.

I mean, he got baskets for JJ and DJ, but that was all built into the offensive scheme. He didn't have any chemistry with any player, really. Chris and Blake sort of divided the court, Chris on the right side where he'd either penetrate or pull up at the elbow; Blake on the left where he'd back his man down, or increasingly, just fire a jumper from somewhere above the foul line.

Even in the greatest moment in Clipper history, there's no chemistry. Blake is a spectator and the other 3 guys are barely in the frame.

Watch on YouTube

[og15]

Didn't really see all that, the chemistry or making teammates better was quite fine, actually very good to me. If you watch any of the extensive Clippers playbook videos, that's not how things were, they didn't just separately take turns.

Also I think it was Q-Rich3 and I or maybe someone else who were discussing how when Paul wins more with the Rockets it's going to be because they are a better team and Harden is a better player than Blake, but all these narratives about Paul "learning to win" and all that kind of stuff is what people will start to say, case and point in your posts. Paul just had a better co-star and an overall better team, don't over complicate it.

Sometimes he deferred too much to someone like Jamal. He was the better player than Blake, he deferred to him also, more in the later years, but he was the one who was better, and one of the problems was that he wanted to defer to Blake as the scorer, but Blake was just never at the level where he was a clearly better scorer for Paul to defer to him. PPG aside, Paul was always the better scorer, that was part of the issue.

Also that clip, that's what happens in iso, if the other guys were doing other things, they would be getting in the way, lol. I'm not sure what you expect. Teams isolate once in a while, the rest of your team usually is watching.

[QRich3]

Also I think it was Q-Rich3 and I or maybe someone else who were discussing how when Paul wins more with the Rockets it's going to be because they are a better team and Harden is a better player than Blake, but all these narratives about Paul "learning to win" and all that kind of stuff is what people will start to say, case and point in your posts. Paul just had a better co-star and an overall better team, don't over complicate it.

Yup, that's definitely going to keep happening, and I will probably dislocate my eyes at some point from the hard roll they're gonna make.

I know players tend to justify things after the fact with stuff like this, but there was no chemistry problem, I don't care how much they liked or resented each other, the 4 man unit of Paul-Redick-Blake-DJ obliterated the league for years, often with point differentials bigger than the Warriors top 4, and leagues above all of the rest. That worked that way in the playoffs too when they were healthy. The problem always was the surrounding pieces and their basketball abilities, not how much they liked each other or how much effort they put in. And health of course, if they were able to stay healthy they could've probably end up overcoming the lack of quality players after the top 4. But the main problem was always not having enough quality NBA players after those guys.

[esqtvd]

Also I think it was Q-Rich3 and I or maybe someone else who were discussing how when Paul wins more with the Rockets it's going to be because they are a better team and Harden is a better player than Blake, but all these narratives about Paul "learning to win" and all that kind of stuff is what people will start to say, case and point in your posts. Paul just had a better co-star and an overall better team, don't over complicate it.

Yup, that's definitely going to keep happening, and I will probably dislocate my eyes at some point from the hard roll they're gonna make.

I know players tend to justify things after the fact with stuff like this, but there was no chemistry problem, I don't care how much they liked or resented each other, the 4 man unit of Paul-Redick-Blake-DJ obliterated the league for years, often with point differentials bigger than the Warriors top 4, and leagues above all of the rest. That worked that way in the playoffs too when they were healthy. The problem always was the surrounding pieces and their basketball abilities, not how much they liked each other or how much effort they put in. And health of course, if they were able to stay healthy they could've probably end up overcoming the lack of quality players after the top 4. But the main problem was always not having enough quality NBA players after those guys.

Which goes to the problem of CP-BG-DJ hogging the lion's share of the salary cap. Note that none of them has gone elsewhere and agreed to play for less, as Durant, Duncan, Tony Parker and Ginobili have done. The Clips had no roster flexibility. We were stuck with dumpster diving. It was my great hope that the Big Three would take less to stay together so we could round up more talent, but let's be honest, in the end they quit on each other. Not that I blame them, but that was the only way the Big Three was going to make it over the hump.


As for our starters turning in gaudy stats as a unit [the 4-man unit of Paul-Redick-Blake-DJ], true. But not in the 4th quarter. Jamal was our leading scorer in the 4th quarter year after year, and that was a big part of our problem. JJ would disappear, you couldn't feed DJ because of the FT problem. And even Chris's historic shot vs. the Spurs over Green and Duncan was not the shot you'd really want, for reasons given. And that's where the recriminations originate. In other key playoff moments, it was Chris who came up small instead of being the heady leader, the hero--especially in the 2014 OKC series.

I love[d] Chris, but our HOFer was not up to being top dog. We have seen the LeBrons and Durants and Steph Currys achieve the impossible in the final ticks of the clock, and Chris did it only once, on a shot I question. It's not that I blame Chris for whatever mistakes he made as a player: His playoff stats are top drawer; his defensive effort was always magnificent. It's only that he was our leader, our quarterback, and we played to his tempo, to his style. The buck did not stop with Blake or even Doc. In the end, it was CP who controlled the ball.


No, I don't think Chris is playing with Harden and the Rockets the way he played with the Clippers. I think he IS concentrating on team play and making the other guys better. That's what Dahntay Jones was referring to, IMO, because frankly I don't know what more you can expect from Blake and DJ than what they did. They are not HOFers. But I really don't know how to prove the case to the skeptical.

[QRich3]

Which goes to the problem of CP-BG-DJ hogging the lion's share of the salary cap. Note that none of them has gone elsewhere and agreed to play for less, as Durant, Duncan, Tony Parker and Ginobili have done. The Clips had no roster flexibility. We were stuck with dumpster diving. It was my great hope that the Big Three would take less to stay together so we could round up more talent, but let's be honest, in the end they quit on each other. Not that I blame them, but that was the only way the Big Three was going to make it over the hump.

They were not the first team, not even the only team at the time to have 3 max contracts + one MLE type. They just did a really bad job of building the team, no need to beat around the bush. It's not easy to find a contending team that has available capspace in any era, contending teams have to find other ways of building the edges, so that's not a good excuse. The roster was awfully built, there's no two ways about it, lack of flexibility is not a valid reason.

As for our starters turning in gaudy stats as a unit [the 4-man unit of Paul-Redick-Blake-DJ], true. But not in the 4th quarter. Jamal was our leading scorer in the 4th quarter year after year, and that was a big part of our problem. JJ would disappear, you couldn't feed DJ because of the FT problem. And even Chris's historic shot vs. the Spurs over Green and Duncan was not the shot you'd really want, for reasons given. And that's where the recriminations originate. In other key playoff moments, it was Chris who came up small instead of being the heady leader, the hero--especially in the 2014 OKC series.

That's just not true, look up the stats, that 4 man unit was still incredible in 4th quarters, whether it was with Matt Barnes, Lance, Austin, Luc, Wes, Turkoglu, a bit less so with Jamal, but you could put me alongside them and they'd have a top of the league Net Rtg. They just played less 4th quarter minutes together cause Doc liked to have the bench guys start the 4th up until the 5 minute mark or so. And Jamal taking a lot of shots on bad efficiency only reinforces the point that there was nothing around them.

I will never get the 'Redick disappears in the 4th quarter/playoffs' thing either, as he was usually really good still, even if his usage lowered as the game went on. And that was by design, not because he couldn't handle the pressure or any nonsense like that. But he still was his usual 60+ TS%, good defense, floor spacing player that stuck to his limits and made few mistakes. That reputation has more to do with people's perception than it does with his actual performance.

I'm not gonna get too deep into the Chris Paul argument, cause I've already had it a million times with different people, but I think I disagree with every word you wrote about him. He was a top 5 player and more than a good enough player to be the best player in a championship team, I will never be convinced otherwise. Like many others before him, he just never got the perfect team built around him, and that's ok.

[esqtvd]

Which goes to the problem of CP-BG-DJ hogging the lion's share of the salary cap. Note that none of them has gone elsewhere and agreed to play for less, as Durant, Duncan, Tony Parker and Ginobili have done. The Clips had no roster flexibility. We were stuck with dumpster diving. It was my great hope that the Big Three would take less to stay together so we could round up more talent, but let's be honest, in the end they quit on each other. Not that I blame them, but that was the only way the Big Three was going to make it over the hump.

They were not the first team, not even the only team at the time to have 3 max contracts + one MLE type. They just did a really bad job of building the team, no need to beat around the bush. It's not easy to find a contending team that has available capspace in any era, contending teams have to find other ways of building the edges, so that's not a good excuse. The roster was awfully built, there's no two ways about it, lack of flexibility is not a valid reason.

As for our starters turning in gaudy stats as a unit [the 4-man unit of Paul-Redick-Blake-DJ], true. But not in the 4th quarter. Jamal was our leading scorer in the 4th quarter year after year, and that was a big part of our problem. JJ would disappear, you couldn't feed DJ because of the FT problem. And even Chris's historic shot vs. the Spurs over Green and Duncan was not the shot you'd really want, for reasons given. And that's where the recriminations originate. In other key playoff moments, it was Chris who came up small instead of being the heady leader, the hero--especially in the 2014 OKC series.

That's just not true, look up the stats

Un, that's not how it works, brother. YOU look up the stats, and post them. Make your case. Go for it--this is a discussion.

I'm not gonna get too deep into the Chris Paul argument, cause I've already had it a million times with different people, but I think I disagree with every word you wrote about him. He was a top 5 player and more than a good enough player to be the best player in a championship team, I will never be convinced otherwise.

Well, that's not how it works either, brother. You convince ME otherwise. I'm not arguing with you. Chris is a Hall of Famer, first ballot. So was Barkley, so is Iverson, so will be Westbrook. I stipulated that Chris's playoff stats are beyond dispute.

What I said was that his leadership is. And that's the difference between HOFers. Rings. Leadership.

This is not controversial.

[QRich3]

That's just not true, look up the stats

Un, that's not how it works, brother. YOU look up the stats, and post them. Make your case. Go for it--this is a discussion.

No, I already looked them up, I have to assume you already informed yourself before discussing stuff, otherwise, what are we arguing about?

But since it takes three clicks, I'll list them:

The 4-man unit of Paul-Redick-Blake-DJ had a +12.5 4th quarter NetRtg in the 2016-17 season

They had a +8.1 4th quarter NetRtg in 2015-16 (it was the year of Blake's injuries so there's not too many minutes played)

They had a +24.9 4th quarter NetRtg in 2014-15

2013-14 was the year Redick broke his hand and Paul injured his shoulder, so there's not too many minutes to go by and the NetRtg is not good.

Well, that's not how it works either, brother. You convince ME otherwise. I'm not arguing with you. Chris is a Hall of Famer, first ballot. So was Barkley, so is Iverson, so will be Westbrook. I stipulated that Chris's playoff stats are beyond dispute.

What I said was that his leadership is. And that's the difference between HOFers. Rings. Leadership.

This is not controversial.

I'm not all that interested in convincing you specifically. If you have a hot take more based in personal perception than in reality, it's not anyone's duty to get you out of it. I don't care how controversial or common it is. I don't have enough interest to put up a lot of work quoting and linking specific stats so that you can dismiss them with vague things like "leadership" and "rings". I've been caught up in this specific conversation about Paul way too many times and I know how it goes and how it ends.

[esqtvd]

That's just not true, look up the stats

Un, that's not how it works, brother. YOU look up the stats, and post them. Make your case. Go for it--this is a discussion.

No, I already looked them up, I have to assume you already informed yourself before discussing stuff, otherwise, what are we arguing about?

But since it takes three clicks, I'll list them:

The 4-man unit of Paul-Redick-Blake-DJ had a +12.5 4th quarter NetRtg in the 2016-17 season

They had a +8.1 4th quarter NetRtg in 2015-16 (it was the year of Blake's injuries so there's not too many minutes played)

They had a +24.9 4th quarter NetRtg in 2014-15

2013-14 was the year Redick broke his hand and Paul injured his shoulder, so there's not too many minutes to go by and the NetRtg is not good.

Well, that's not how it works either, brother. You convince ME otherwise. I'm not arguing with you. Chris is a Hall of Famer, first ballot. So was Barkley, so is Iverson, so will be Westbrook. I stipulated that Chris's playoff stats are beyond dispute.

What I said was that his leadership is. And that's the difference between HOFers. Rings. Leadership.

This is not controversial.

I'm not all that interested in convincing you specifically. If you have a hot take more based in personal perception than in reality, it's not anyone's duty to get you out of it. I don't care how controversial or common it is. I don't have enough interest to put up a lot of work quoting and linking specific stats so that you can dismiss them with vague things like "leadership" and "rings". I've been caught up in this specific conversation about Paul way too many times and I know how it goes and how it ends.

Dunno know what you're interested in, bruh. Surely you're not saying that JJ Redick was, is or has ever been a 4th-quarter force.

Or DJ either. If you're interested in a friendly discussion let's start there and work back from that, because that's my case. Nobody disputes the CP-BG-DJ-JJ 4some was the greatest 1st half team in the league, OK? And you can't dispute that Jamal was our leading scorer in 4th quarters, can you?

And I am [or was] a YUGE Chris Paul fan so let's not go there either. This was Chris Paul's franchise--the GOAT Clipper--but he chose to leave instead of making a stand.

[QRich3]

Surely you're not saying that JJ Redick was, is or has ever been a 4th-quarter force.

Or DJ either. If you're interested in a friendly discussion let's start there and work back from that.

JJ was and is a very good role player, and that worked similarly in the 4th quarter than in the previous three. So was DJ, who got hacked a lot, and that lowered the ceiling of what he could do, but still had an amazing gravity pull that dragged defenders out of the ball handlers making the Clippers offense a lot better. That worked in every quarter too. You look at the numbers and see that overall, they still were both key components in making the Clippers good at the end of games.

The reputation comes more from anecdotes that grab people's attention. I don't care how laughable it is to watch DJ brick free throw after free throw, if you want to seriously talk about DJ's effect in the team, you have to look at the overall performance of the team with him on the floor. Not just remember those moments and forget how useful it is having him setting screens because that's not as flashy. And most of the time, his defensive ability plus the way he spaced the floor before he got the ball, had a positive influence on the team, even after weighting it against the possessions he got hacked in.

JJ's game relies a lot on stamina, and the way Doc approached games had him shooting a lot early in the game to open other avenues for later, and taking more of a backseat later. That's one thing, and implying that he turned into a worse player in the 4th because of some mental shortcomings or whatever is a different one, one that I don't think is true. While we're talking about anecdotes, we don't win the San Antonio series without JJ stepping up hugely in the 4th quarter.