GSP wrote:Another bad game for Cp3. Hes had 2 terrific quarters this series and been complete ASS CHEEKS otherwise
this was a pivotal game 5 with the series tied but luckily his teammates bailed him out. Book, Ayton, Bridges, Biyombo, Cam Johnson, Shamet all balled..............now that Phoenix has the 3-2 lead with less pressure for Cp3 look to see him have a great game 6 and go back to being overrated and called "Point God" like he hasnt been dog doo for 90% of this series
Seriously, where does this vitriol come from? Did Chris Paul steal your lunch as a kid or something?
As much as you've tried to suggest that Chris Paul only plays well when it doesn't matter, I'll remind you that three of the top 5-6 performances BY ANYONE in these 2022 Playoffs belong to Chris Paul; and TWO of the three occurred in spots that sure as hell seemed like it mattered:
*One outstanding performance was in a mere 3-pt victory, included as dominant a 4th quarter as we've ever seen FROM ANYONE, all of which occurred without Devin Booker and where losing would have meant going down 1-2 in a series Booker was NOT expected to return for. This was the first in a sequence of games you yourself had declared had just become a "legacy series".......a position you promptly did a complete 180 on as soon as it turned out different from your expectation (and not a one of us believes for a second that you wouldn't STILL be calling it his legacy series if he'd played less stellar and the Suns had lost, fwiw [I think for most of us, your credibility on this topic went straight out the door at that point]).
**The other was a 6-pt win in a close-out game 6 (on the road).
Just before that game 6 was another good game [not legendary, but good], which was also played without Booker and where losing would mean going down 3-2 in the series.
I would argue G2 against Dallas [another good game] mattered, too, as you really don't want to lose HCA against a swaggering Doncic and a Mavericks team that is likely much better [presently] than their 52-30 record indicates---->note Doncic struggled early in the season, and the Mavs were 15-17 thru their first 32 games [SRS hovering just a hair above 0, iirc]......they closed the season 37-13 in their last 50 (on pace for nearly 61 wins).
And for as much you imply he’s basically been riding the coattails of Booker [+/- Ayton], I’ve noted the Suns appear to live or die in the playoffs based on Chris Paul’s performance more than anyone else’s. Ayton’s is close, though his single-worst game of these playoffs [handily] was G2 against Dallas, which the Suns nonetheless won by 20. He had at least one other “average” game that the Suns nonetheless won.
At any rate, I’m going to focus more on the backcourt, as I don't think even the most outspoken of Chris Paul’s critics (e.g. you) would call Ayton more than a 2a/2b [along with Paul] on this Suns team.
For Paul:
In 11 playoff games so far he’s had 5 “good” games, (that is: above his rs standard; and again 3 of them were utterly brilliant), 2 “average” games (that is: more or less consistent with his rs standard [G2 vs NO and G1 vs Dal are the two I’m labelling thus), and 4 “bad” [below rs standard] games.
In his average games, well…..flip a coin: Suns are 1-1 in those.
When he has a “good” game: Suns are 5-0.
When he has a “bad” game: Suns are 1-3.
So rather than his performance being inconsequential because he can just ride the prowess of his teammates to victory [as you are suggesting], what we’re seeing suggests the exact opposite: they've largely been dependent upon big performances from CP3. Him having a good game is sort of a clear path to victory for the team…….but when he has a bad one, the team [mostly] cannot sufficiently pick up the slack (G5 vs Dal is the first exception).
Based on his average box production in the wins below [which includes one “average” game and one “bad” game, btw], it’s a bit concerning: if that’s what is required of him for them to win, it’s a helluva standard to expect from ANYBODY, much less from a 37-year-old in the downslope of his career......
Playoff Wins
30 pts @ 88.9% TS, 7 reb, 10 ast, 3 stl, 1 blk, 2 tov (+20 on/off, team-best [11-pt win])
28 pts @ 65.1% TS, 4 reb, 14 ast, 1 stl, 0 tov (+10 on/off, tied for 2nd-best [3-pt win])
22 pts @ 53.3% TS, 6 reb, 11 ast, 3 stl, 1 tov
33 pts @ 104.7% TS, 5 reb, 8 ast, 1 stl, 3 tov
19 pts @ 66.3% TS, 5 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 1 blk, 1 tov (+14 on/off, team-best [7-pt win])
28 pts @ 76.9% TS, 6 reb, 8 ast, 1 stl, 3 tov
7 pts @ 43.8% TS, 2 reb, 10 ast, 1 stl, 4 tov
AVG: 23.9 pts @ 72.4% TS, 5.0 reb, 9.1 ast, 1.6 stl, 0.3 blk, 2.0 tov
Playoff Losses
17 pts @ 46.7% TS, 1 reb, 14 ast, 1 stl, 0 tov
4 pts @ 25.0% TS, 3 reb, 11 ast, 2 stl, 3 tov
12 pts @ 66.7% TS, 7 reb, 4 ast, 1 stl, 7 tov
5 pts @ 62.5% TS, 5 reb, 7 ast, 1 stl, 2 tov
AVG: 9.5 pts @ 52.8% TS, 4.0 reb, 9.0 ast, 1.25 stl, 3.0 tov
Compare this to the correlation to Devin Booker’s performance [or presence]:
Using the same “good/bad/average” semantics [as compared to rs standard], Booker has had 5 “good” games, 1 “average” game [I’m labelling G1 vs Dal thus: 9 reb/8 ast and only 1 tov; but otoh a little below his scoring avg and on poor efficiency with 23 pts on <49% TS], 2 “bad” games, and was completely absent for 3 others. One of the “good” games was only slightly “good”, and could arguably be labelled “average” instead: G2 vs NO [31 pts on 81.6% TS, but only 2 reb, 1 ast, 2 tov, and injured in the 3rd quarter]. G1 against Dallas is marginal for the grade of “average”, too [could debatably be labelled “good”].
I figured labelling one average and the other good was a fair compromise compared to pushing both in one direction or the other (and between them the 30+ pts on nearly 82% TS seemed like the one to go with as “good”).
In Booker’s “good” games……Suns are 3-2.
In his “average” games……Suns are 1-0.
In his “bad” games…..Suns are 1-1.
When he was completely absent……Suns were 2-1.
Thus far, at least, there’s clearly a lesser degree of correlation between his individual performance and the team’s success. When he's absent or playing poorly, the Suns are still 3-2; and when he plays average or better [mostly better], they're 4-2.
His avg performance in wins/losses [not counting the games he was absent] looks as follows….
Playoff Wins
25 pts @ 57.8% TS, 4 reb, 8 ast, 1 stl, 1 tov
13 pts @ 50.5% TS, 5 reb, 3 ast, 2 tov
23 pts @ 48.9% TS, 9 reb, 8 ast, 1 blk, 1 tov
30 pts @ 73.8% TS, 4 reb, 4 ast, 1 blk, 2 tov
28 pts @ 64.3% TS, 7 reb, 2 ast, 2 stl, 2 tov
AVG: 23.8 pts @ 59.4%, 5.8 reb, 5.0 ast, 0.6 stl, 0.4 blk, 1.6 tov
Playoff Losses
31 pts @ 81.6% TS, 2 reb, 1 ast, 2 tov
18 pts @ 61.0% TS, 2 reb, 6 ast, 5 tov
35 pts @ 63.1% TS, 4 reb, 7 ast, 1 blk, 5 tov
AVG: 28 pts @ 68.3% TS, 2.7 reb, 4.7 ast, 0.3 blk, 4.0 tov
There’s very little difference in average quality of his individual performance in wins vs in losses.
I’ll go more brief with Ayton…..
He’s had relatively few “bad” games so far (only 2 that I assess as bad), so sample size [to draw conclusions from] is smaller. Booker only had two bad games too, BUT he had the 3 games missed with injury [which for our purposes here (how the Suns do when he doesn’t “show up”) can be lumped in with the bad].
Anyway, Suns are 5-1 in Ayton’s “good” games, 1-2 in his “average” ones, and 1-1 in his “bad” games.
No one [in terms of individual performance] has a tighter correlation to their success as a team than Chris Paul. And that is totally at odds with the narrative you're selling.
And even inclusive of the bad games he's had.....
He's got the team's 2nd/(*3rd)-best playoff PER at 24.5. Ayton's is 24.6, though Paul is average +2.9 mpg (*McGee's is 26.3, though in just 10.6 mpg).
He's got the team's best/(*2nd-best) WS/48 at .234 (*McGee's is .248, but again: just 10.6 mpg).
He's got the team's best BPM at +5.9.
He's got the team's 2nd-best net on/off per 100 at +15.5 (Bridges is best at +17.2; Ayton is +6.5, Booker just +5.0).
It's patently clear that he's been the Suns' MVP in these playoffs so far. Maybe that will change before it's over, maybe not.
But right now, you're like a guy trying to sell a turd in a bowl, calling it ice cream: no one's buying it.
