2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[Statlanta]

And Chris Paul is playing sensational given his age, really happy he turned the narrative around his career.

Did he really change any narrative? Sure he made it past the WCF. He was the guy who fouled Giannis in the most critical point in the Finals and is the only guy people think about in your comment when you say health permitting.

[Colbinii]

And Chris Paul is playing sensational given his age, really happy he turned the narrative around his career.

Did he really change any narrative?

I agree. He was already a top 20 All-time player.

[parsnips33]

Not saying anything new here, but man Jokic is just incredible. Combination of size, strength, skill, and decision-making is ridiculous

[Doctor MJ]

And Chris Paul is playing sensational given his age, really happy he turned the narrative around his career.

Did he really change any narrative? Sure he made it past the WCF. He was the guy who fouled Giannis in the most critical point in the Finals and is the only guy people think about in your comment when you say health permitting.

He absolutely changed the important narrative:

He went from "super-annoying know-it-all control freak who pisses off other big time talents" to "great veteran mentor and leader".

If what you're talking about is "couldn't win the big one", to me that's just lazy talk. We know that Paul is a limited player compared to the LeBrons of the world so the question isn't whether we should expect him to be the best player in the world, but whether he can do his thing harmoniously with great talent around him.

[Texas Chuck]

so Chris Paul couldn't get along all the time with Blake/DeAndre or with James Harden.

Call me crazy for thinking the issue might not be Paul was a control freak, but rather Paul was all-in on doing whatever it took to win and his star teammates had other priorities in terms of night life and personal statistical achievement.

I strongly disagree Paul changed his narrative. He's been this guy. He's just got guys willing to follow his lead again for the first time since New Orleans. And he's stayed reasonably healthy.

Now Doc is right, that Paul is a step down from the true MVP level players, but he's never been the main problem imo.

[falcolombardi]

And Chris Paul is playing sensational given his age, really happy he turned the narrative around his career.

Did he really change any narrative? Sure he made it past the WCF. He was the guy who fouled Giannis in the most critical point in the Finals and is the only guy people think about in your comment when you say health permitting.

He absolutely changed the important narrative:

He went from "super-annoying know-it-all control freak who pisses off other big time talents" to "great veteran mentor and leader".

If what you're talking about is "couldn't win the big one", to me that's just lazy talk. We know that Paul is a limited player compared to the LeBrons of the world so the question isn't whether we should expect him to be the best player in the world, but whether he can do his thing harmoniously with great talent around him.

how much of that reputation was deserved honestly?

as Long as you are not berating teammates and cauaing conflict with them is not a guy like chris Paul who Holds everyone and himself accountable exactly what you want of a team star?

[Doctor MJ]

Did he really change any narrative? Sure he made it past the WCF. He was the guy who fouled Giannis in the most critical point in the Finals and is the only guy people think about in your comment when you say health permitting.

He absolutely changed the important narrative:

He went from "super-annoying know-it-all control freak who pisses off other big time talents" to "great veteran mentor and leader".

If what you're talking about is "couldn't win the big one", to me that's just lazy talk. We know that Paul is a limited player compared to the LeBrons of the world so the question isn't whether we should expect him to be the best player in the world, but whether he can do his thing harmoniously with great talent around him.

how much of that reputation was deserved honestly?

as Long as you are not berating teammates and cauaing conflict with them is not a guy like chris Paul who Holds everyone and himself accountable exactly what you want of a team star?

1. On one level, it doesn't matter if it's deserved. It's what was. It's up to each of us to decide how much that matters to us, but when we talk about "narrative" like this, we're talking about what's out there and influencing people.

2. I'll flat out say that it matters to me. I was critical of the fact that Paul came into the Clippers and immediately slowed everything down when the optimal way to play - imho - with Griffin & Jordan - was to go fast, and the fact that Paul & Griffin's relationship got worse with time is to me something that Paul deserves part of the blame on. He also gets part of the blame for the Clippers losing their playoff confidence during and after their choke jobs. Similarly, the issues in Houston could be summarized as "Paul begged for a job in Houston then pissed off his boss (Harden) and got fired."

The truth is that even with Paul's success in Houston it doesn't necessarily erase what came before, but it does illustrate that Paul at this age is capable of playing with younger talent without disrupting them too much (Booker is still clearly disrupted by Paul's presence to a degree, but since they are both guards, that's inevitable), and capable of being a good mentor to young guys.

But of course in the mean time, we've seen Harden revealed to be not merely mildly problematic as a co-worker, but one of the most toxic superstars we've ever seen in the NBA, so that puts Paul's behavior in Houston in a different light, and also allows me to give Paul a bit more benefit of the doubt in the Clipper situation where I do think Griffin was more the choke artist and Jordan really couldn't think for himself.

[penbeast0]

The question of whether a person is a bad locker room influence is (a)subjective and (b)the severity of the criticism tends to be results based. Michael Jordan was one of the more toxic superstars in NBA history, publicly berating and fighting with teammates, calling out coaches, etc. But he won doing it so it clearly wasn't THAT toxic. Another player like Derrick Coleman may actually be less toxic seeming but if his attitude and issues create more problems on the team and then the team underperforms, he may be seen as a toxic locker room presence (or maybe just not a good enough shooter to be taking that many shots).

[Fadeaway_J]

The question of whether a person is a bad locker room influence is (a)subjective and (b)the severity of the criticism tends to be results based. Michael Jordan was one of the more toxic superstars in NBA history, publicly berating and fighting with teammates, calling out coaches, etc. But he won doing it so it clearly wasn't THAT toxic. Another player like Derrick Coleman may actually be less toxic seeming but if his attitude and issues create more problems on the team and then the team underperforms, he may be seen as a toxic locker room presence (or maybe just not a good enough shooter to be taking that many shots).

100% this.

[Doctor MJ]

The question of whether a person is a bad locker room influence is (a)subjective and (b)the severity of the criticism tends to be results based. Michael Jordan was one of the more toxic superstars in NBA history, publicly berating and fighting with teammates, calling out coaches, etc. But he won doing it so it clearly wasn't THAT toxic. Another player like Derrick Coleman may actually be less toxic seeming but if his attitude and issues create more problems on the team and then the team underperforms, he may be seen as a toxic locker room presence (or maybe just not a good enough shooter to be taking that many shots).

The degree may be subjective, but is anyone going to actually fight me on the idea that Harden is toxic at this point? I was one of his apologists for a long time, but to me he's lost all benefit of the doubt.

[Peregrine01]

CP3 seems to have a grating personality. But I've been extremely impressed with how he's been able to step aside and let his younger co-stars (from Harden to Shai and now Book) shine, especially when he's still one of the most impactful players in the league. The guy just makes teams a lot better...I mean every team he joined got a lot better and every team he left got a lot worse.

[Doctor MJ]

so Chris Paul couldn't get along all the time with Blake/DeAndre or with James Harden.

Call me crazy for thinking the issue might not be Paul was a control freak, but rather Paul was all-in on doing whatever it took to win and his star teammates had other priorities in terms of night life and personal statistical achievement.

All-in on doing everything except changing his style of play to suit his star teammate's explosive youthful game. He came in and slowed the Clippers down. Why? Because that's how he liked to play, because it gave him more control, which then caused friction in the relationship with the young star he came to LA to play with.

[falcolombardi]

He absolutely changed the important narrative:

He went from "super-annoying know-it-all control freak who pisses off other big time talents" to "great veteran mentor and leader".

If what you're talking about is "couldn't win the big one", to me that's just lazy talk. We know that Paul is a limited player compared to the LeBrons of the world so the question isn't whether we should expect him to be the best player in the world, but whether he can do his thing harmoniously with great talent around him.

how much of that reputation was deserved honestly?

as Long as you are not berating teammates and cauaing conflict with them is not a guy like chris Paul who Holds everyone and himself accountable exactly what you want of a team star?

1. On one level, it doesn't matter if it's deserved. It's what was. It's up to each of us to decide how much that matters to us, but when we talk about "narrative" like this, we're talking about what's out there and influencing people.

2. I'll flat out say that it matters to me. I was critical of the fact that Paul came into the Clippers and immediately slowed everything down when the optimal way to play - imho - with Griffin & Jordan - was to go fast, and the fact that Paul & Griffin's relationship got worse with time is to me something that Paul deserves part of the blame on. He also gets part of the blame for the Clippers losing their playoff confidence during and after their choke jobs. Similarly, the issues in Houston could be summarized as "Paul begged for a job in Houston then pissed off his boss (Harden) and got fired."

The truth is that even with Paul's success in Houston it doesn't necessarily erase what came before, but it does illustrate that Paul at this age is capable of playing with younger talent without disrupting them too much (Booker is still clearly disrupted by Paul's presence to a degree, but since they are both guards, that's inevitable), and capable of being a good mentor to young guys.

But of course in the mean time, we've seen Harden revealed to be not merely mildly problematic as a co-worker, but one of the most toxic superstars we've ever seen in the NBA, so that puts Paul's behavior in Houston in a different light, and also allows me to give Paul a bit more benefit of the doubt in the Clipper situation where I do think Griffin was more the choke artist and Jordan really couldn't think for himself.

even when results were absolutely elite offensively? at that point are not we risking putting theory over results? what results do you think a fast paced clippers would have achieved?

clippers and chris Paul offensove results are always better than the theory of his style says they should be, at what point do we ask ourselves if playing a low turnover methodical style of chris Paul offense is really "limiting"

[Fadeaway_J]

The question of whether a person is a bad locker room influence is (a)subjective and (b)the severity of the criticism tends to be results based. Michael Jordan was one of the more toxic superstars in NBA history, publicly berating and fighting with teammates, calling out coaches, etc. But he won doing it so it clearly wasn't THAT toxic. Another player like Derrick Coleman may actually be less toxic seeming but if his attitude and issues create more problems on the team and then the team underperforms, he may be seen as a toxic locker room presence (or maybe just not a good enough shooter to be taking that many shots).

The degree may be subjective, but is anyone going to actually fight me on the idea that Harden is toxic at this point? I was one of his apologists for a long time, but to me he's lost all benefit of the doubt.

Isn't that in itself down to the results though?

Are we having this conversation if the Rockets topple the Warriors in 2018, or the Nets stay healthy and win it all last season?

[Texas Chuck]

so Chris Paul couldn't get along all the time with Blake/DeAndre or with James Harden.

Call me crazy for thinking the issue might not be Paul was a control freak, but rather Paul was all-in on doing whatever it took to win and his star teammates had other priorities in terms of night life and personal statistical achievement.

All-in on doing everything except changing his style of play to suit his star teammate's explosive youthful game. He came in and slowed the Clippers down. Why? Because that's how he liked to play, because it gave him more control, which then caused friction in the relationship with the young star he came to LA to play with.

Yeah I don't think speeding up the game would have been the right approach. The goal isn't to maximize the stats of Blake and Jordan but to win games.

I know you hate how Paul plays, but that doesn't mean its the wrong approach. These weren't Amare/Marion and co. Nash wouldn't have won there either.

And we've seen enough of Blake Griffin to just realize the guy is an ass. So trying to placate him should never have been a goal. He was going to find reasons to be an issue regardless. And Jordan just isn't a smart player and Paul literally pulled every bit of value anyone ever could have out of that guy.

[falcolombardi]

so Chris Paul couldn't get along all the time with Blake/DeAndre or with James Harden.

Call me crazy for thinking the issue might not be Paul was a control freak, but rather Paul was all-in on doing whatever it took to win and his star teammates had other priorities in terms of night life and personal statistical achievement.

All-in on doing everything except changing his style of play to suit his star teammate's explosive youthful game. He came in and slowed the Clippers down. Why? Because that's how he liked to play, because it gave him more control, which then caused friction in the relationship with the young star he came to LA to play with.

Yeah I don't think speeding up the game would have been the right approach. The goal isn't to maximize the stats of Blake and Jordan but to win games.

I know you hate how Paul plays, but that doesn't mean its the wrong approach. These weren't Amare/Marion and co. Nash wouldn't have won there either.

And we've seen enough of Blake Griffin to just realize the guy is an ass. So trying to placate him should never have been a goal. He was going to find reasons to be an issue regardless. And Jordan just isn't a smart player and Paul literally pulled every bit of value anyone ever could have out of that guy.

also clippers were a elite offense during chris Paul stay, arguably better offensive stretch than the 2015-2019 warriors for example

at what point is the criticism of paul approach more dogmátic (a methodical,safe, ball protection style cannot lead to elite offense) than "evidence based"?

[Doctor MJ]

how much of that reputation was deserved honestly?

as Long as you are not berating teammates and cauaing conflict with them is not a guy like chris Paul who Holds everyone and himself accountable exactly what you want of a team star?

1. On one level, it doesn't matter if it's deserved. It's what was. It's up to each of us to decide how much that matters to us, but when we talk about "narrative" like this, we're talking about what's out there and influencing people.

2. I'll flat out say that it matters to me. I was critical of the fact that Paul came into the Clippers and immediately slowed everything down when the optimal way to play - imho - with Griffin & Jordan - was to go fast, and the fact that Paul & Griffin's relationship got worse with time is to me something that Paul deserves part of the blame on. He also gets part of the blame for the Clippers losing their playoff confidence during and after their choke jobs. Similarly, the issues in Houston could be summarized as "Paul begged for a job in Houston then pissed off his boss (Harden) and got fired."

The truth is that even with Paul's success in Houston it doesn't necessarily erase what came before, but it does illustrate that Paul at this age is capable of playing with younger talent without disrupting them too much (Booker is still clearly disrupted by Paul's presence to a degree, but since they are both guards, that's inevitable), and capable of being a good mentor to young guys.

But of course in the mean time, we've seen Harden revealed to be not merely mildly problematic as a co-worker, but one of the most toxic superstars we've ever seen in the NBA, so that puts Paul's behavior in Houston in a different light, and also allows me to give Paul a bit more benefit of the doubt in the Clipper situation where I do think Griffin was more the choke artist and Jordan really couldn't think for himself.

even when results were absolutely elite offensively? at that point are not we risking putting theory over results? what results do you think a fast paced clippers would have achieved?

clippers and chris Paul offensove results are always better than the theory of his style says they should be, at what point do we ask ourselves if playing a low turnover methodical style of chris Paul offense is really "limiting"

Well, a good start would be having the best ORtg we've ever seen. The Paul Clippers topped out at in the 112s. In the years since as we've seen absolutely every team play faster than what was considered "fast" back then, we've seen teams put up considerably better ORtgs, so it's not like we were at some kind of fundamental threshold.

In fact, the fact that the Suns play faster now is part of the credit I give to Paul for his late career accomplishments. He's not "making" the Suns play fast, but he's adapting to new norms that result in better offense.

(I should note that Paul's on-court ORtg was considerably better than this, but the Clippers also weren't staggering their lineups.)

I do understand you thinking about this in terms of theory vs results, but what you call "theory" I call "common sense". You attack in transition because the defense isn't ready if you've got a point guard who can make the passes and other guys who can finish. The Clippers had guys that could finish, so the only reason not to do it is if you don't have the goods at point guard.

Also, I do appreciate the point about Paul reducing turnovers, but missed opportunities are missed opportunities.

[Doctor MJ]

The question of whether a person is a bad locker room influence is (a)subjective and (b)the severity of the criticism tends to be results based. Michael Jordan was one of the more toxic superstars in NBA history, publicly berating and fighting with teammates, calling out coaches, etc. But he won doing it so it clearly wasn't THAT toxic. Another player like Derrick Coleman may actually be less toxic seeming but if his attitude and issues create more problems on the team and then the team underperforms, he may be seen as a toxic locker room presence (or maybe just not a good enough shooter to be taking that many shots).

The degree may be subjective, but is anyone going to actually fight me on the idea that Harden is toxic at this point? I was one of his apologists for a long time, but to me he's lost all benefit of the doubt.

Isn't that in itself down to the results though?

Are we having this conversation if the Rockets topple the Warriors in 2018, or the Nets stay healthy and win it all last season?

I wasn't saying any of this after after the 2018 season. I'm talking about his behavior since then.

You can always ask whether the person would have behaved better if things had gone his way, but the idea of Hitler getting into art school doesn't in any way negate the genocide he perpetrated in the path he later chose.

[Doctor MJ]

so Chris Paul couldn't get along all the time with Blake/DeAndre or with James Harden.

Call me crazy for thinking the issue might not be Paul was a control freak, but rather Paul was all-in on doing whatever it took to win and his star teammates had other priorities in terms of night life and personal statistical achievement.

All-in on doing everything except changing his style of play to suit his star teammate's explosive youthful game. He came in and slowed the Clippers down. Why? Because that's how he liked to play, because it gave him more control, which then caused friction in the relationship with the young star he came to LA to play with.

Yeah I don't think speeding up the game would have been the right approach. The goal isn't to maximize the stats of Blake and Jordan but to win games.

I know you hate how Paul plays, but that doesn't mean its the wrong approach. These weren't Amare/Marion and co. Nash wouldn't have won there either.

And we've seen enough of Blake Griffin to just realize the guy is an ass. So trying to placate him should never have been a goal. He was going to find reasons to be an issue regardless. And Jordan just isn't a smart player and Paul literally pulled every bit of value anyone ever could have out of that guy.

I'm not talking about maxing out their stats, I'm talking about taking advantage of the opportunities that transition gives you to attack the defense before they are fully ready. I'm talking about watching Paul and seeing him not making passes that were there to be made, and I'm talking about him not even getting the process started to get the opportunity for more of these passes.

As I've acknowledged, there's risk involved with taking advantage of transition and thus there's a balance to be struck between aggressively taking advantage of defensive weakness and conservatively protecting against turnovers. But:

1. The NBA has gotten more and more aggressive in its approach in the past couple decades, thus kicking up pace, and the result has been more effective offense.

2. This has resulted in Paul himself gradually embracing more of this pace-play in Phoenix despite the fact he's not playing with a team that cried out for it the way the Clippers did (nobody on the Suns is the kind of dunk-threat that either Griffin or Jordan were).

I just really think it's important not to say "The offense was good, therefore there wasn't anything about it that could have been improved", particularly when all I'm really pointing to is the overarching trend of how the game has changed over the course of Paul's career, with Paul getting yanked along reluctantly the whole way through.

[70sFan]

So we should criticize Paul for his lack of visionary and that's the reason why he didn't anchor GOAT offense in Clippers? I don't follow this logic, nobody in NBA history would anchor Clippers teams to GOAT offensive level.

I'm not as on Paul as some, but I don't find his tendencies on the court concerning. It's easy to say "you should play like Curry" but

A) Paul doesn't have physical advantages Curry has, nor his skillset
B) Curry ball isn't that proven without ATG supporting cast

Paul has been playing winning basketball for years, he just had health problems that limited his overall value. He plays the same way he did 5 years ago, he was better back then actually.