Redick: 'Donald Trump-Level Pettiness" Derailed Clippers

[esqtvd]

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

Hit me up with your stats and links on the 4th quarter if you want us to discuss. It's key to your dispute with me. I've already stipulated that the CP-BG-DJ-JJ 4some was statistically at the top of the stats, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Jamal was our 4th quarter leading scorer, yes?

JJ and DJ were statistically shadows of themselves in the 4th quarter, yes?


I'm able to be convinced. Floor's yours.

[QRich3]

Hit me up on your stats and links on that if you want us to discuss. It's key to your dispute with me.

lol how come it's only on me to back up everything I say with definitive stats but you just sit there waiting to be convinced?

Anyway, I'm not looking at anything obscure or anything like that, I use basketball-reference and nba.com like everyone else and nbawowy if I'm looking for something very specific. Not sure if you're familiar with those sites, in case you aren't I'll put a couple things up and you can work from there and search what you're looking for.

In the nba.com links on the previous post you can see line up information, you can switch seasons, teams, and type of line ups in the tabs at the top of table, or you can go in the "advanced filters" tab to change stuff like which quarter do you want the information, which interval of the shot clock (start or end of possession), or which opponents you want the info for.

Another useful tool in nba.com is the on/off info when you click on a specific team's name, for instance if you go to the 4th quarters of the last season the team was together, you see there was only 6 players that had a positive NetRtg (that's the team +/- net result per 100 possessions when a guy is on the floor). One was Brice's 9 minutes played, just some small sample noise, and the other 5 are the "big 4" and Paul Pierce (lol not sure how to explain that). The rest of the roster had a negative influence in the score. You go back one season and see that in 2016 only 3 rotation guys have a good NetRtg in the 4th, and those are Redick (best in the team), Paul and DJ, with Luc lurking some distance behind. Blake was injured most of that year. Go one more season back and while the team's overall numbers are a bit better, the 5 starters are miles above everyone else, with JJ having more than double the NetRtg of the first bench guy in Jamal (not counting Cunningham cause he didn't play much).

Or if you wanna focus on JJ's scoring in the 4th quarter, you just click in his name, select "splits" and the season you want, "in game splits", and you already get his stats split by period. You can see there's not a significant difference in his scoring efficiency in the 4th quarter compared to other quarters. For instance, for last season, his TS% was 64% in the 4th, better than his splits for the first three, where it hovered between 59% and 63%. In OT it was 74%.
In his last season as a Clipper, his 4th quarter TS& was 59.3%, while for the previous three it was 59.8%, 66.3% and 55.6%
The season before that, the one with Blake's injuries, he shot 67.8% in the 4th, while the previous three quarters it was slightly worse (although still great).
So his scoring efficiency in the 4th is equal or better than it is in the rest of the game.

What you see each season invariably is that his 1st quarter usage starts at about 25% every year, and it goes gradually down until about 15% in 4th quarters. Which watching the games, you can easily see that's attributed to Doc running less plays for him and focusing on a more usual spread P&R offense as the game goes along (which is a good strategy in my mind). But there's just no substantive evidence that JJ's play goes down as the game goes along. And if you focus on defensive numbers, it's the same story. He just shoots less and people go along with the narrative that he's worse, when he's not at all.

In nbawowy.com you can do broader searches with a lot more detailed stats, for instance if I want to know how the Clippers in 4th quarters and OT while DJ is on the floor, I select the Clippers as a team, select those periods in the filters section and put DJ in the "on" textbox, and the dates you want. The following link gives you a ton of information about what's happened with DJ on the court for the last 4 years of the 'big 4', and if you go the "team" tab, you see that he played 1831 4th quarter/OT possessions in those 4 years, and the Clippers scored 1.138 points per possession, which would be better than Golden State's league leading 1.123 overall last season:
http://nbawowy.com/8aq8zj32x0o#/8aq8zj32x0o

You can also see under the free throws tab that he shot 324 free throws in those possessions (most in the team by far, of course), and he shot 45.7% in those. While in the "scoring tab" you see that DJ's shots (taking FT's into account, you can see the formula hovering over the PPP column title) were an overall 1.19 points per possession, which is really good. So the free throws were hurting the offense, but his field scoring helped make up for it, and in the end the hacking was not enough for the offense to be bad overall.

Now you can do the same operation but putting DJ in the "off the court" textbox instead, and you see the Clippers scored 1.063 points per possession in the 2237 4th quarter/OT possessions since 2014 that DJ was on the bench, which would be equivalent to the Jazz' 8th best offense in the league last year:
http://nbawowy.com/fy8s5663yj4#/fy8s5663yj4

So from that you get that, even if his FT shooting is abysmal, the Clippers offense is a lot better with him on the floor than with him out.

Jamal was our 4th quarter leading scorer, yes?

On horrible efficiency. The story that tells you is that he was hurting the team tremendously by taking so many ill advised shots. Not that he was better than JJ or DJ. Not even close. Look at +/- splits and coincidentally, the team was always good with those guys on the floor, but some shade of horrible to worse with Jamal in it.

JJ and DJ were statistically shadows of themselves in the 4th quarter, yes?

No, not at all, that's my point that I just spent half an hour illustrating (barely coherently probably, but still) while you just sit there putting the onus on me lol
I was bored at work today, but don't expect people to put this kind of effort while you're not matching it in a discussion like this.

[esqtvd]

Hit me up on your stats and links on that if you want us to discuss. It's key to your dispute with me.

lol how come it's only on me to back up everything I say with definitive stats but you just sit there waiting to be convinced?

Anyway, I'm not looking at anything obscure or anything like that, I use basketball-reference and nba.com like everyone else and nbawowy if I'm looking for something very specific. Not sure if you're familiar with those sites, in case you aren't I'll put a couple things up and you can work from there and search what you're looking for.

In the nba.com links on the previous post you can see line up information, you can switch seasons, teams, and type of line ups in the tabs at the top of table, or you can go in the "advanced filters" tab to change stuff like which quarter do you want the information, which interval of the shot clock (start or end of possession), or which opponents you want the info for.

Another useful tool in nba.com is the on/off info when you click on a specific team's name, for instance if you go to the 4th quarters of the last season the team was together, you see there was only 6 players that had a positive NetRtg (that's the team +/- net result per 100 possessions when a guy is on the floor). One was Brice's 9 minutes played, just some small sample noise, and the other 5 are the "big 4" and Paul Pierce (lol not sure how to explain that). The rest of the roster had a negative influence in the score. You go back one season and see that in 2016 only 3 rotation guys have a good NetRtg in the 4th, and those are Redick (best in the team), Paul and DJ, with Luc lurking some distance behind. Blake was injured most of that year. Go one more season back and while the team's overall numbers are a bit better, the 5 starters are miles above everyone else, with JJ having more than double the NetRtg of the first bench guy in Jamal (not counting Cunningham cause he didn't play much).

Or if you wanna focus on JJ's scoring in the 4th quarter, you just click in his name, select "splits" and the season you want, "in game splits", and you already get his stats split by period. You can see there's not a significant difference in his scoring efficiency in the 4th quarter compared to other quarters. For instance, for last season, his TS% was 64% in the 4th, better than his splits for the first three, where it hovered between 59% and 63%. In OT it was 74%.
In his last season as a Clipper, his 4th quarter TS& was 59.3%, while for the previous three it was 59.8%, 66.3% and 55.6%
The season before that, the one with Blake's injuries, he shot 67.8% in the 4th, while the previous three quarters it was slightly worse (although still great).
So his scoring efficiency in the 4th is equal or better than it is in the rest of the game.

What you see each season invariably is that his 1st quarter usage starts at about 25% every year, and it goes gradually down until about 15% in 4th quarters. Which watching the games, you can easily see that's attributed to Doc running less plays for him and focusing on a more usual spread P&R offense as the game goes along (which is a good strategy in my mind). But there's just no substantive evidence that JJ's play goes down as the game goes along. And if you focus on defensive numbers, it's the same story. He just shoots less and people go along with the narrative that he's worse, when he's not at all.

In nbawowy.com you can do broader searches with a lot more detailed stats, for instance if I want to know how the Clippers in 4th quarters and OT while DJ is on the floor, I select the Clippers as a team, select those periods in the filters section and put DJ in the "on" textbox, and the dates you want. The following link gives you a ton of information about what's happened with DJ on the court for the last 4 years of the 'big 4', and if you go the "team" tab, you see that he played 1831 4th quarter/OT possessions in those 4 years, and the Clippers scored 1.138 points per possession, which would be better than Golden State's league leading 1.123 overall last season:
http://nbawowy.com/8aq8zj32x0o#/8aq8zj32x0o

You can also see under the free throws tab that he shot 324 free throws in those possessions (most in the team by far, of course), and he shot 45.7% in those. While in the "scoring tab" you see that DJ's shots (taking FT's into account, you can see the formula hovering over the PPP column title) were an overall 1.19 points per possession, which is really good. So the free throws were hurting the offense, but his field scoring helped make up for it, and in the end the hacking was not enough for the offense to be bad overall.

Now you can do the same operation but putting DJ in the "off the court" textbox instead, and you see the Clippers scored 1.063 points per possession in the 2237 4th quarter/OT possessions since 2014 that DJ was on the bench, which would be equivalent to the Jazz' 8th best offense in the league last year:
http://nbawowy.com/fy8s5663yj4#/fy8s5663yj4

So from that you get that, even if his FT shooting is abysmal, the Clippers offense is a lot better with him on the floor than with him out.

Jamal was our 4th quarter leading scorer, yes?

On horrible efficiency. The story that tells you is that he was hurting the team tremendously by taking so many ill advised shots. Not that he was better than JJ or DJ. Not even close. Look at +/- splits and coincidentally, the team was always good with those guys on the floor, but some shade of horrible to worse with Jamal in it.

JJ and DJ were statistically shadows of themselves in the 4th quarter, yes?

No, not at all, that's my point that I just spent half an hour illustrating (barely coherently probably, but still) while you just sit there putting the onus on me lol
I was bored at work today, but don't expect people to put this kind of effort while you're not matching it in a discussion like this.

Well, it was you who called me out. That certainly does put the burden of proof on you. Thank you for assuming it.

Here's the thing with efficiency ratings--as you note, usage goes down. Therefore, you're not the same player even if your percentages remain level.

As for JJ, I dunno:

1st Quarter vs. 4th Quarter [2015-16]

One of the most common criticisms of J.J. Redick is that his constant movement and running around serves as a double edged sword. While Redick is extremely effective in the first quarter when he's fresh, as the game goes on he wears down and is less effective at the end of games. In looking at the 1st quarter vs. 4th quarter splits for last year's regular season, the numbers seem to back the theory up. On average in the 1st quarter, Redick would score 6.5 points on 50% shooting from deep, while in the 4th quarter those numbers dropped to 3 points and 34% three point shooting.

https://www.clipsnation.com/2015/10/12/9457777/2015-2016-clippers-player-preview-j-j-redick

As for DJ's FT problem, the fact is that if you fouled him, until last year his Points Per Possession went down to under .5. Again, his PPP stayed high because they simply didn't let him touch the ball, or if Hack-a-DJ was being played, he was taken off the floor.

I do appreciate you attempting to back up your dispute with facts instead of "eye-rolling," I really do.

[og15]

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.

Isn't that how the league works though? Also have you done the numbers to see how much of a discount they would need to take to bring the Clippers well below the salary cap to be able to sign quality players? I think you should go do the numbers and see, remember the Clippers would need to be at least like $5 million more than the MLE below to salary cap for it to make any difference in quality of player they can sign.

For the second bolded part, interestingly I saw the exact opposite of this. I actually preferred how he played with the Clippers stylistically, a lot of two man game, less deliberate, more team centered, using sets. Houston doesn't do much in terms of running sets, it's just give the ball to a primary ball handler and wait till they maybe give it back to you. Don't know if I've seen Paul force as much offense as I saw him do with Houston where he would have possessions where he just has the ball almost the whole clock, not since VDN was around at least.

Paul had a MUCH better connection with DJ on the pick and roll than he does with Capela, but it takes time to get there, sure, but it's not even close. Paul and Blake playing off each other is far superior to anything Paul and Harden do, the most they use each other is to set a screen to try and force a switch. I haven't looked into the numbers, but the amount of isolation and Paul just dribbling with other guys standing around in Houston compared to with the Clippers was a lot more. I don't like Houston's style much, Clippers offense was much better style wise, but Houston's offense works, which is what they are concerned about, not the aesthetics of it.

Your initial post was talking about chemistry and how the greatest Clippers moment had the other guys "out of the frame", and like I said, the funny thing is that Paul/BG had FAR more of an on court playing off each other and connection than Paul/Harden. Paul/Harden basically play the take turns game, and their lineups are literally set up for them to do that. You see what I mean? People decide the narratives and what they want to see / how they want to interpret things based on the end result. So we come to this, either it isn't true that they had no chemistry, or it just simple doesn't matter since based on play-style and player connections, he had even less on court chemistry offensively with his Houston teammates than he did with his Clippers teammates yet they went to the WCF and took GS to 7 games and were basically on the cusp of beating them and having a championship. So chemistry seemingly doesn't even matter.

You can check the numbers, since you are the one that suggested that Chris and Blake divided the court and Paul didn't have chemistry with any player (which is laughable because the players themselves such as Redick/DJ would disagree, but that's besides the point). Sure if we ignore things like how him and Blake got real good at the early leak out and seal where he would throw the long pass, the great pick and roll connection of him and DJ with them really knowing how to read each other and where to be, the early "drag" screen with Paul/DJ, him and Redick basically being on the same wavelength when it came to reading what Redick would do off ball coming off screens, the quick hand-off him and Redick would do when Redick would bring the ball up the court, I always knew that if they set it up like that they were attempting that quick hand off where Redick passes, gets it right back and many times gets an easy layup, etc, etc. You ignore all that and use a late game isolation possession where teammates are deliberately trying to get out of the way as a standard for how the team played or as any sort of determinant of chemistry, you do that, and yes, you can end up with your type of conclusions.

So I wanted to fact check my isolation thoughts, Chris Paul Isolation:
17-18: 29.3%
16-17: 17.5%
15-16: 15.2%

Yup, he double his isolations posessions from 15-16, and he was isolating 12% more than his last season with the Clippers, but on the Clippers

[esqtvd]

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.

Isn't that how the league works though? Also have you done the numbers to see how much of a discount they would need to take to bring the Clippers well below the salary cap to be able to sign quality players? I think you should go do the numbers and see, remember the Clippers would need to be at least like $5 million more than the MLE below to salary cap for it to make any difference in quality of player they can sign.

For the second bolded part, interestingly I saw the exact opposite of this. I actually preferred how he played with the Clippers stylistically, a lot of two man game, less deliberate, more team centered, using sets. Houston doesn't do much in terms of running sets, it's just give the ball to a primary ball handler and wait till they maybe give it back to you. Don't know if I've seen Paul force as much offense as I saw him do with Houston where he would have possessions where he just has the ball almost the whole clock, not since VDN was around at least.

Paul had a MUCH better connection with DJ on the pick and roll than he does with Capela, but it takes time to get there, sure, but it's not even close. Paul and Blake playing off each other is far superior to anything Paul and Harden do, the most they use each other is to set a screen to try and force a switch. I haven't looked into the numbers, but the amount of isolation and Paul just dribbling with other guys standing around in Houston compared to with the Clippers was a lot more. I don't like Houston's style much, Clippers offense was much better style wise, but Houston's offense works, which is what they are concerned about, not the aesthetics of it.

Your initial post was talking about chemistry and how the greatest Clippers moment had the other guys "out of the frame", and like I said, the funny thing is that Paul/BG had FAR more of an on court playing off each other and connection than Paul/Harden. Paul/Harden basically play the take turns game, and their lineups are literally set up for them to do that. You see what I mean? People decide the narratives and what they want to see / how they want to interpret things based on the end result. So we come to this, either it isn't true that they had no chemistry, or it just simple doesn't matter since based on play-style and player connections, he had even less on court chemistry offensively with his Houston teammates than he did with his Clippers teammates yet they went to the WCF and took GS to 7 games and were basically on the cusp of beating them and having a championship. So chemistry seemingly doesn't even matter.

You can check the numbers, since you are the one that suggested that Chris and Blake divided the court and Paul didn't have chemistry with any player (which is laughable because the players themselves such as Redick/DJ would disagree, but that's besides the point). Sure if we ignore things like how him and Blake got real good at the early leak out and seal where he would throw the long pass, the great pick and roll connection of him and DJ with them really knowing how to read each other and where to be, the early "drag" screen with Paul/DJ, him and Redick basically being on the same wavelength when it came to reading what Redick would do off ball coming off screens, the quick hand-off him and Redick would do when Redick would bring the ball up the court, I always knew that if they set it up like that they were attempting that quick hand off where Redick passes, gets it right back and many times gets an easy layup, etc, etc. You ignore all that and use a late game isolation possession where teammates are deliberately trying to get out of the way as a standard for how the team played or as any sort of determinant of chemistry, you do that, and yes, you can end up with your type of conclusions.

So I wanted to fact check my isolation thoughts, Chris Paul Isolation:
17-18: 29.3%
16-17: 17.5%
15-16: 15.2%

Yup, he double his isolations posessions from 15-16, and he was isolating 12% more than his last season with the Clippers, but on the Clippers

I don't really disagree with any of your counterarguments although some of them are vs. things I'm not really saying.

I'd never say JJ and DJ had no chemistry with CP3--since they can't get their own shot, they were entirely dependent on Chris. Jamal got a lot of early 4thQ minutes precisely because he can get his own shot, and that was CP's rest period: If the Clips could hold the lead until the 6:30 mark, it was a win. If they squandered it and CP had to come back in at the 8 or even 9 minute mark, it was gonna be a tough haul.

As for CP's chemistry with BG, I really never saw it. Whether CP has better chemistry with The Beard, I didn't watch them closely enough except to say that in the least, even if they take turns, Beard is better than Blake. IIRC, the 2-man, 3-man or 4-man Houston lineup stats with CP are off the charts.

My [admittedly subjective] memory of CP's chemistry with the other Clippers was that it was a one-way street. Surely Dahntay Jones [and Matt Barnes] had something in mind when they gave their views. Hey, CP is the Point God--of course he's setting up the other guys! It's what he does!


As for the Big Three taking less to stay together not making any difference, you could be right, also a function of BG and especially DJ being overpriced in the NBA open market.

Tim Duncan played his last 5 years for $10M or less. We will never see his like again.

[QRich3]

Well, it was you who called me out. That certainly does put the burden of proof on you. Thank you for assuming it.

Did I though? you quoted me and I answered back, not sure if I seemed too combative or whatever, but that was not my intention.

Here's the thing with efficiency ratings--as you note, usage goes down. Therefore, you're not the same player even if your percentages remain level.

As for JJ, I dunno:

1st Quarter vs. 4th Quarter [2015-16]

One of the most common criticisms of J.J. Redick is that his constant movement and running around serves as a double edged sword. While Redick is extremely effective in the first quarter when he's fresh, as the game goes on he wears down and is less effective at the end of games. In looking at the 1st quarter vs. 4th quarter splits for last year's regular season, the numbers seem to back the theory up. On average in the 1st quarter, Redick would score 6.5 points on 50% shooting from deep, while in the 4th quarter those numbers dropped to 3 points and 34% three point shooting.

https://www.clipsnation.com/2015/10/12/9457777/2015-2016-clippers-player-preview-j-j-redick

Come on now, a link from 2015 quoting PPG and the anecdotal dip in 3PT% without looking at his overall efficiency? that's what I'm talking about when I'm talking about anecdote, you have to look at the full picture when judging a player, not just one isolated thing from 3 years ago you happened to run into reading an article. Go dive on the links I put before and check how, when and from where he took his shots, and the picture becomes a lot clearer.

As for usage going down being a negative, it's not, at all. It's by design, cause Doc wanted to get the wing defenders on their toes at the start of the game, so the most devastating play the Clippers had (the Paul-Blake P&R) was cleaner for the rest of the game, since Redick and DJ's defenders were sticking to them and not crowding the ball. Redick scoring a lot is not his best quality (and same for DJ), the best thing he did for the Clippers was pulling defenders and creating good spacing off the ball. You can't give all the credit for playmaking and scoring to Paul and Blake without giving credit to the guys that got them free of defenders. And the Clippers were able to have a top offense every year despite only having two above average shooters in the lineup, and that was in great part because of how Doc was able to make the most of leveraging those two shooters (more like one and a half) and the two main playmakers with tricks like these.

And that's also part of the reason Redick's 3PT percentages (not overall percentages) went slightly down in a couple of the years (and the rest of the team's went up) as the game went on; the shots he took at the start of the game were curls off a bunch of screens where he was open, while at the end of the game, more of them were broken plays with a hand in his face. That doesn't mean his value to the team was less or that he played worse.
If you go into the nba.com tracking stats you can see that for that year, in the first quarter 73% of his shots were open shots, where the defender was 4+ feet away. While in the 4th, that percentage went down to 67% and a quarter of his shots were tightly guarded. You can also see the number of shots he takes at the end of the shot clock are more than double in the 4th than in the 1st.

As for DJ's FT problem, the fact is that if you fouled him, until last year his Points Per Possession went down to under .5. Again, his PPP stayed high because they simply didn't let him touch the ball, or if Hack-a-DJ was being played, he was taken off the floor.

No, his own PPP are only counted when he's the one scoring, if his PPP are high it's because adding his bad free throw shooting to his ability to dunk everything around him equals a good offensive player. It doesn't count when he's off the floor or another guy is making the shot. Fixing like this on DJ's FT shooting is like saying Ben Simmons is a terrible player because he can't shoot 3's. You can't isolate a player's weaknesses to make a judgement about him, you have to take everything into account. And it's not a great idea to downplay DJ's off the ball skills either, since that's his best ability, his vertical spacing was another of the key reasons the Clippers were able to have a top offense, as with him dragging one or two defenders to the threat of his roll to the basket, and Redick having another one glued to him in the corner, Paul and Blake were free to operate at the top of the key even though, again, the Clippers didn't have enough shooters to be that good. And he was not always taken out when he was hacked anyway.

[esqtvd]

Well, it was you who called me out. That certainly does put the burden of proof on you. Thank you for assuming it.

Did I though? you quoted me and I answered back, not sure if I seemed too combative or whatever, but that was not my intention.

Here's the thing with efficiency ratings--as you note, usage goes down. Therefore, you're not the same player even if your percentages remain level.

As for JJ, I dunno:

1st Quarter vs. 4th Quarter [2015-16]

One of the most common criticisms of J.J. Redick is that his constant movement and running around serves as a double edged sword. While Redick is extremely effective in the first quarter when he's fresh, as the game goes on he wears down and is less effective at the end of games. In looking at the 1st quarter vs. 4th quarter splits for last year's regular season, the numbers seem to back the theory up. On average in the 1st quarter, Redick would score 6.5 points on 50% shooting from deep, while in the 4th quarter those numbers dropped to 3 points and 34% three point shooting.

https://www.clipsnation.com/2015/10/12/9457777/2015-2016-clippers-player-preview-j-j-redick

Come on now, a link from 2015 quoting PPG and the anecdotal dip in 3PT% without looking at his overall efficiency? that's what I'm talking about when I'm talking about anecdote, you have to look at the full picture when judging a player, not just one isolated thing from 3 years ago you happened to run into reading an article. Go dive on the links I put before and check how, when and from where he took his shots, and the picture becomes a lot clearer.

As for usage going down being a negative, it's not, at all. It's by design, cause Doc wanted to get the wing defenders on their toes at the start of the game, so the most devastating play the Clippers had (the Paul-Blake P&R) was cleaner for the rest of the game, since Redick and DJ's defenders were sticking to them and not crowding the ball. Redick scoring a lot is not his best quality (and same for DJ), the best thing he did for the Clippers was pulling defenders and creating good spacing off the ball. You can't give all the credit for playmaking and scoring to Paul and Blake without giving credit to the guys that got them free of defenders. And the Clippers were able to have a top offense every year despite only having two above average shooters in the lineup, and that was in great part because of how Doc was able to make the most of leveraging those two shooters (more like one and a half) and the two main playmakers with tricks like these.

And that's also part of the reason Redick's 3PT percentages (not overall percentages) went slightly down in a couple of the years (and the rest of the team's went up) as the game went on; the shots he took at the start of the game were curls off a bunch of screens where he was open, while at the end of the game, more of them were broken plays with a hand in his face. That doesn't mean his value to the team was less or that he played worse.
If you go into the nba.com tracking stats you can see that for that year, in the first quarter 73% of his shots were open shots, where the defender was 4+ feet away. While in the 4th, that percentage went down to 67% and a quarter of his shots were tightly guarded. You can also see the number of shots he takes at the end of the shot clock are more than double in the 4th than in the 1st.

As for DJ's FT problem, the fact is that if you fouled him, until last year his Points Per Possession went down to under .5. Again, his PPP stayed high because they simply didn't let him touch the ball, or if Hack-a-DJ was being played, he was taken off the floor.

No, his own PPP are only counted when he's the one scoring, if his PPP are high it's because adding his bad free throw shooting to his ability to dunk everything around him equals a good offensive player. It doesn't count when he's off the floor or another guy is making the shot. Fixing like this on DJ's FT shooting is like saying Ben Simmons is a terrible player because he can't shoot 3's. You can't isolate a player's weaknesses to make a judgement about him, you have to take everything into account. And it's not a great idea to downplay DJ's off the ball skills either, since that's his best ability, his vertical spacing was another of the key reasons the Clippers were able to have a top offense, as with him dragging one or two defenders to the threat of his roll to the basket, and Redick having another one glued to him in the corner, Paul and Blake were free to operate at the top of the key even though, again, the Clippers didn't have enough shooters to be that good. And he was not always taken out when he was hacked anyway.

Well, remember, your initial dispute was with this:

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.

I don't think you've proved or even argued that either was a 4th quarter force. At least not with a straight face.

My main rebuttal to your very good facts remains: As their usage goes down [it did], so does their value as a player, even if their percentages remain fairly constant. JJ's net was +20 in the 1stQ, +7.5 or so in the 4th. Not the same player.

DJ WAS a liability when the other team played Hack-a. That lowered his PPP to under .5. Neither did the Clips try to set him up for fear he would be fouled. That is a net negative even if the stats doesn't show it. They went away from him. That's playing 4-on-5.

As for JJ, he couldn't play with the 2nd unit, without a CP to set him up. That's why Jamal was out there instead, so there's half the 4th quarter already gone, and JJ's on the pine. Had you put JJ out there instead, those lofty percentages would have crashed and been even worse than Jamal's. The numbers don't tell the whole story, especially here.

I also think JJ got somewhat of a boost in his 4thQ TS% by getting a lot of cheap FTs at the end of won games when the other team had to foul. His eFG% does not look that great; one year it was way down in the 40s.


Still, you provided good numbers for your position. JJ was likely not the 4th quarter eunuch the narrative says he is. Still, neither JJ or DJ was a force, and that was the statement you disputed. When push came to shove, it was a two-man team, and IMO they didn't mesh all that well.

Or, put another way, neither CP or BG was the Kobe or MJ you wanted to take that last shot, or who wanted it the way they did. As they say in my business, at least when it came down to the last shot, we were putting two turkeys together and trying to make an eagle.

[wco81]

Guys, what purpose does it serve to litigate the past?

For whatever reason, the Clippers just underachieved in the playoffs.

I still remember the 2013-2014 series, didn't think Warriors had a chance after losing Bogut and Lee before the playoffs.

Clippers blew them out by 40 in game 2 but the Warriors didn't go away and they competed in game 7, which they ended up losing.

But it showed Green as a defensive force, pretty much competing toe to toe against Griffin, who'd had huge games against the Warriors until that point.

Even though the Warriors lost, they grew up a lot that series.

DJ and Griffin should have done whatever they wanted in that series and they did but Warriors made the Clippers earn it and probably gained a lot of confidence about themselves.

That and they got rid of that boat anchor Jackson.

[esqtvd]

Guys, what purpose does it serve to litigate the past?

Well,



a) It's the offseason
b) We have no idea what we've got going into '18-'19
c) Even less idea about coming OUT of '18-'19
c) After 25 years of almost constant suffering, it was the Clippers Golden Age
d) We have 6 years of blood, sweat and tears invested in it

It still haunts them all--look at JJ still spouting off about it. Matt Barnes, Dudley. Dahntay Jones. It's a classic tragedy, of Shakespearean proportion.

And everybody ends up dead in the end.

[QRich3]

Well, remember, your initial dispute was with this:

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.

I don't think you've proved or even argued that either was a 4th quarter force. At least not with a straight face.

I took issue with those two guys not being incredible forces of nature in the 4th quarter? is that really what you took from all of that?

I was talking to og about how that 4 man unit was amazing therefore any chemistry issues brought up were not a great factor, and you quoted me with this:

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.

Which is not true. They did turn the same type of gaudy stats in the 4th quarter. Not sure why you'd try to turn that into me saying that Redick is like the best 4th quarter performer ever or some exaggeration like that.

This is what I meant when I said that I know how this conversation goes, you don't really seem interested in discussing the specifics of that line up in the 4th quarter, but in confirming your bias.

My main rebuttal to your very good facts remains: As their usage goes down [it did], so does their value as a player, even if their percentages remain fairly constant. JJ's net was +20 in the 1stQ, +7.5 or so in the 4th. Not the same player.

We've already been through this, usage going down doesn't mean their value goes down, I'd argue it goes up since they're opening higher percentage plays for other guys. Scoring a lot is not the main value of complementary role players like them, it never was and it'll never be.

About JJ's NetRtg going down in the 4th, it's not real either, it happened in one season and it looks like statistic noise. The rest of the seasons is almost exactly the same in the 1st and the 4th. And in that one year, the rest of the starters dip even harder than JJ, so it was a team thing more than a JJ Redick thing.

DJ WAS a liability when the other team played Hack-a. That lowered his PPP to under .5. Neither did the Clips try to set him up for fear he would be fouled. That is a net negative even if the stats doesn't show it. They went away from him. That's playing 4-on-5.

It doesn't work like that, you can't just isolate the possessions where he shoots free throws and say his PPP in those possessions is .5 so he's a bad player. If you isolate Steph Curry's possessions where he commits a turnover, his PPP is zero. That doesn't tell you anything. I already covered that DJ's offensive value in the 4th was dragging defenders with the threat of rolling to the basket, and that is very valuable indeed. And the times they did run P&R's with him, compensated his bad FT shooting leaving him with a good overall efficiency in the 4th, that's covered in the previous post too. The stats do show it.

Still, you provided good numbers for your position. JJ was likely not the 4th quarter eunuch the narrative says he is. Still, neither JJ or DJ was a force, and that was the statement you disputed. When push came to shove, it was a two-man team, and IMO they didn't mesh all that well.

That was definitely not the statement I disputed, and I couldn't disagree any harder with the two man team narrative, for the reason I gave before. It was a 4 man team, and it meshed like few teams I've seen before. Problem is there was a big hole of nothingness after those 4.

[esqtvd]

Well, remember, your initial dispute was with this:

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.

I don't think you've proved or even argued that either was a 4th quarter force. At least not with a straight face.

I took issue with those two guys not being incredible forces of nature in the 4th quarter? is that really what you took form all of that?

I was talking to og about how that 4 man unit was amazing therefore any chemistry issues brought up were not a great factor, and you quoted me with this:

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.

Which is not true. They did turn the same type of gaudy stats in the 4th quarter. Not sure why you'd try to turn that into me saying that Redick is like the best 4th quarter performer ever or some exaggeration like that.

This is what I meant when I said that I know how this conversation goes, you don't really seem interested in discussing the specifics of that line up in the 4th quarter, but in confirming your bias.

Oh please don't get personal, QRich? We were doing so well.

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

Why were the starters not the same 5 in the 4thQ, let alone crunchtime? Their 1stQ stats were off the hook. Doc miscalculation?

I asked; you answered; I rebutted: JJ and DJ were not the same players--and no one is--when their usage goes down. NB, we're talking 4thQ here.

I would think you're saying the starting 5 should have been the finishing 5. I don't see it: JJ and DJ were liabilities for reasons given that you have not as yet rebutted. I'll restate them if you need.

Floor's still yours.

[QRich3]

Oh please don't get personal, QRich? We were doing so well.

Were we? I'm getting incredibly frustrated by you not even reading what I write and acting like I didn't address your points and I have to explain myself again

You keep repeating that the starters stats are bad in the 4th quarter, and I've already put up like 20 paragraphs explaining in detail why I think that's not true. Yet you keep ignoring the specifics of my points and going back to the same thing like I haven't explained myself.

You keep talking about usage being the end-all be-all for role players cause that's the only thing you found where the number is lower in the 4th quarter, and you're trying to say it supports your point. But usage being high or low it's not a good or bad thing by itself, and I've said that in like 3 different ways. Yet you say I haven't rebutted that stuff.

You see how I'm getting frustrated yeah?

[esqtvd]

Oh please don't get personal, QRich? We were doing so well.

Were we? I'm getting incredibly frustrated by you not even reading what I write and acting like I didn't address your points and I have to explain myself again

You keep repeating that the starters stats are bad in the 4th quarter, and I've already put up like 20 paragraphs explaining in detail why I think that's not true. Yet you keep ignoring the specifics of my points and going back to the same thing like I haven't explained myself.

You keep talking about usage being the end-all be-all for role players cause that's the only thing you found where the number is lower in the 4th quarter, and you're trying to say it supports your point. But usage being high or low it's not a good or bad thing by itself, and I've said that in like 3 different ways. Yet you say I haven't rebutted that stuff.

You see how I'm getting frustrated yeah?

YOU'RE frustrated? This part:

This is what I meant when I said that I know how this conversation goes, you don't really seem interested in discussing the specifics of that line up in the 4th quarter, but in confirming your bias.

That's getting personal.

As to the facts, asked and answered. When usage declines, even if the percentages hold, you're not the same player. JJ was not nearly as productive in the 4thQ and DJ had to be taken out if they were hacking, and not given the ball when they weren't.

They are not 4th Quarter forces. They are not Prime Time. Not with the Clippers, not with their new teams. That's all I ever said, bro.

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.

[Galloisdaman]

As an outsider my view that the Clippers could beat anyone when they hit on all 8 cylinders but like some high performance sports cars they broke down at times. I think in the playoffs their flaws came to the top more often. When they clicked they were very good but they were not as consistent as the top teams. Kind of reminds me of some guys that can score 35 one night but then fall back to a couple of games below 15.

[og15]

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.

Isn't that how the league works though? Also have you done the numbers to see how much of a discount they would need to take to bring the Clippers well below the salary cap to be able to sign quality players? I think you should go do the numbers and see, remember the Clippers would need to be at least like $5 million more than the MLE below to salary cap for it to make any difference in quality of player they can sign.

For the second bolded part, interestingly I saw the exact opposite of this. I actually preferred how he played with the Clippers stylistically, a lot of two man game, less deliberate, more team centered, using sets. Houston doesn't do much in terms of running sets, it's just give the ball to a primary ball handler and wait till they maybe give it back to you. Don't know if I've seen Paul force as much offense as I saw him do with Houston where he would have possessions where he just has the ball almost the whole clock, not since VDN was around at least.

Paul had a MUCH better connection with DJ on the pick and roll than he does with Capela, but it takes time to get there, sure, but it's not even close. Paul and Blake playing off each other is far superior to anything Paul and Harden do, the most they use each other is to set a screen to try and force a switch. I haven't looked into the numbers, but the amount of isolation and Paul just dribbling with other guys standing around in Houston compared to with the Clippers was a lot more. I don't like Houston's style much, Clippers offense was much better style wise, but Houston's offense works, which is what they are concerned about, not the aesthetics of it.

Your initial post was talking about chemistry and how the greatest Clippers moment had the other guys "out of the frame", and like I said, the funny thing is that Paul/BG had FAR more of an on court playing off each other and connection than Paul/Harden. Paul/Harden basically play the take turns game, and their lineups are literally set up for them to do that. You see what I mean? People decide the narratives and what they want to see / how they want to interpret things based on the end result. So we come to this, either it isn't true that they had no chemistry, or it just simple doesn't matter since based on play-style and player connections, he had even less on court chemistry offensively with his Houston teammates than he did with his Clippers teammates yet they went to the WCF and took GS to 7 games and were basically on the cusp of beating them and having a championship. So chemistry seemingly doesn't even matter.

You can check the numbers, since you are the one that suggested that Chris and Blake divided the court and Paul didn't have chemistry with any player (which is laughable because the players themselves such as Redick/DJ would disagree, but that's besides the point). Sure if we ignore things like how him and Blake got real good at the early leak out and seal where he would throw the long pass, the great pick and roll connection of him and DJ with them really knowing how to read each other and where to be, the early "drag" screen with Paul/DJ, him and Redick basically being on the same wavelength when it came to reading what Redick would do off ball coming off screens, the quick hand-off him and Redick would do when Redick would bring the ball up the court, I always knew that if they set it up like that they were attempting that quick hand off where Redick passes, gets it right back and many times gets an easy layup, etc, etc. You ignore all that and use a late game isolation possession where teammates are deliberately trying to get out of the way as a standard for how the team played or as any sort of determinant of chemistry, you do that, and yes, you can end up with your type of conclusions.

So I wanted to fact check my isolation thoughts, Chris Paul Isolation:
17-18: 29.3%
16-17: 17.5%
15-16: 15.2%

Yup, he double his isolations posessions from 15-16, and he was isolating 12% more than his last season with the Clippers, but on the Clippers

I don't really disagree with any of your counterarguments although some of them are vs. things I'm not really saying.

I'd never say JJ and DJ had no chemistry with CP3--since they can't get their own shot, they were entirely dependent on Chris. Jamal got a lot of early 4thQ minutes precisely because he can get his own shot, and that was CP's rest period: If the Clips could hold the lead until the 6:30 mark, it was a win. If they squandered it and CP had to come back in at the 8 or even 9 minute mark, it was gonna be a tough haul.

As for CP's chemistry with BG, I really never saw it. Whether CP has better chemistry with The Beard, I didn't watch them closely enough except to say that in the least, even if they take turns, Beard is better than Blake. IIRC, the 2-man, 3-man or 4-man Houston lineup stats with CP are off the charts.

My [admittedly subjective] memory of CP's chemistry with the other Clippers was that it was a one-way street. Surely Dahntay Jones [and Matt Barnes] had something in mind when they gave their views. Hey, CP is the Point God--of course he's setting up the other guys! It's what he does!


As for the Big Three taking less to stay together not making any difference, you could be right, also a function of BG and especially DJ being overpriced in the NBA open market.

Tim Duncan played his last 5 years for $10M or less. We will never see his like again.

The first bolded part, I either grossly misunderstood what you clearly stated, or you typed something you didn't mean because you said exactly this:

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.

The second bolded part, that was exactly my point, and you just agreed. This is what I said:

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.

Paul goes to a better team with a better co-star, better and bigger wings who can defend the type of wings you face in the West, and the narrative becomes that he finally "learned how to win", and what you first stated which was that he was now "focused on making guys better", which obviously inherently implies that he wasn't on the Clippers, but it's far from the truth. He went to a better team with a better and healthier co-star, and he won more, it's simple, but people will want to develop all these complicated narratives.

Barnes said the team was talented but had issues, sure, and Jones said what, that they were at different ages to fully realize their potential, right? Something like that. I think this video here of Paul explains a bit about some of the issues he can have with teammates: https://youtu.be/hDL4h5OcszY?t=296

[wco81]

They had the Warriors-Clippers game 7 of the WC playoffs from 2014 on NBA TV the other day.

Interesting to see that CP3 on a lot of possessions brought the ball up and then after crossing half court, he passed it off and kind of stood around on a lot of possessions.

So they ran a lot of possessions for others.

Jamal had a big game there, over 20 points.

[esqtvd]

Isn't that how the league works though? Also have you done the numbers to see how much of a discount they would need to take to bring the Clippers well below the salary cap to be able to sign quality players? I think you should go do the numbers and see, remember the Clippers would need to be at least like $5 million more than the MLE below to salary cap for it to make any difference in quality of player they can sign.

For the second bolded part, interestingly I saw the exact opposite of this. I actually preferred how he played with the Clippers stylistically, a lot of two man game, less deliberate, more team centered, using sets. Houston doesn't do much in terms of running sets, it's just give the ball to a primary ball handler and wait till they maybe give it back to you. Don't know if I've seen Paul force as much offense as I saw him do with Houston where he would have possessions where he just has the ball almost the whole clock, not since VDN was around at least.

Paul had a MUCH better connection with DJ on the pick and roll than he does with Capela, but it takes time to get there, sure, but it's not even close. Paul and Blake playing off each other is far superior to anything Paul and Harden do, the most they use each other is to set a screen to try and force a switch. I haven't looked into the numbers, but the amount of isolation and Paul just dribbling with other guys standing around in Houston compared to with the Clippers was a lot more. I don't like Houston's style much, Clippers offense was much better style wise, but Houston's offense works, which is what they are concerned about, not the aesthetics of it.

Your initial post was talking about chemistry and how the greatest Clippers moment had the other guys "out of the frame", and like I said, the funny thing is that Paul/BG had FAR more of an on court playing off each other and connection than Paul/Harden. Paul/Harden basically play the take turns game, and their lineups are literally set up for them to do that. You see what I mean? People decide the narratives and what they want to see / how they want to interpret things based on the end result. So we come to this, either it isn't true that they had no chemistry, or it just simple doesn't matter since based on play-style and player connections, he had even less on court chemistry offensively with his Houston teammates than he did with his Clippers teammates yet they went to the WCF and took GS to 7 games and were basically on the cusp of beating them and having a championship. So chemistry seemingly doesn't even matter.

You can check the numbers, since you are the one that suggested that Chris and Blake divided the court and Paul didn't have chemistry with any player (which is laughable because the players themselves such as Redick/DJ would disagree, but that's besides the point). Sure if we ignore things like how him and Blake got real good at the early leak out and seal where he would throw the long pass, the great pick and roll connection of him and DJ with them really knowing how to read each other and where to be, the early "drag" screen with Paul/DJ, him and Redick basically being on the same wavelength when it came to reading what Redick would do off ball coming off screens, the quick hand-off him and Redick would do when Redick would bring the ball up the court, I always knew that if they set it up like that they were attempting that quick hand off where Redick passes, gets it right back and many times gets an easy layup, etc, etc. You ignore all that and use a late game isolation possession where teammates are deliberately trying to get out of the way as a standard for how the team played or as any sort of determinant of chemistry, you do that, and yes, you can end up with your type of conclusions.

So I wanted to fact check my isolation thoughts, Chris Paul Isolation:
17-18: 29.3%
16-17: 17.5%
15-16: 15.2%

Yup, he double his isolations posessions from 15-16, and he was isolating 12% more than his last season with the Clippers, but on the Clippers

I don't really disagree with any of your counterarguments although some of them are vs. things I'm not really saying.

I'd never say JJ and DJ had no chemistry with CP3--since they can't get their own shot, they were entirely dependent on Chris. Jamal got a lot of early 4thQ minutes precisely because he can get his own shot, and that was CP's rest period: If the Clips could hold the lead until the 6:30 mark, it was a win. If they squandered it and CP had to come back in at the 8 or even 9 minute mark, it was gonna be a tough haul.

As for CP's chemistry with BG, I really never saw it. Whether CP has better chemistry with The Beard, I didn't watch them closely enough except to say that in the least, even if they take turns, Beard is better than Blake. IIRC, the 2-man, 3-man or 4-man Houston lineup stats with CP are off the charts.

My [admittedly subjective] memory of CP's chemistry with the other Clippers was that it was a one-way street. Surely Dahntay Jones [and Matt Barnes] had something in mind when they gave their views. Hey, CP is the Point God--of course he's setting up the other guys! It's what he does!


As for the Big Three taking less to stay together not making any difference, you could be right, also a function of BG and especially DJ being overpriced in the NBA open market.

Tim Duncan played his last 5 years for $10M or less. We will never see his like again.

The first bolded part, I either grossly misunderstood what you clearly stated, or you typed something you didn't mean because you said exactly this:

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.

The second bolded part, that was exactly my point, and you just agreed.

As I noted elsewhere, the chemistry was one-way. Nobody gets 10+ apg without some "chemistry" with the lucky recipient. Where I was going was that Chris had nobody to set HIM up.

This is what I said:

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.

Paul goes to a better team with a better co-star, better and bigger wings who can defend the type of wings you face in the West, and the narrative becomes that he finally "learned how to win", and what you first stated which was that he was now "focused on making guys better", which obviously inherently implies that he wasn't on the Clippers, but it's far from the truth. He went to a better team with a better and healthier co-star, and he won more, it's simple, but people will want to develop all these complicated narratives.

Barnes said the team was talented but had issues, sure, and Jones said what, that they were at different ages to fully realize their potential, right? Something like that. I think this video here of Paul explains a bit about some of the issues he can have with teammates: https://youtu.be/hDL4h5OcszY?t=296

Yes, that's also what I meant by "chemistry," that CP is a total deep-throat for the game whereas BG and DJ are good-time kinda fellas, just enjoying the ride. Did the guys get together to review tape, discuss the game? Discuss how to help the lesser guys, discuss how to become a better team on and off the floor? I don't think so. All that goes into "chemistry."