9 years in the league and Chris Paul has never made a Conference Finals...

[Doranku]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Al Thornton]

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img35/5463/raydisgusted.png

[PyrrhusX]

Needs to collude like Lebron.

[zoom17]

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img35/5463/raydisgusted.png

[Ball So Harden]

Needs to collude like Lebron.

He forced his way out of New Orleans to a stacked team. What more do you think he needs to do?

[Fawker]

when your career conincides with the greatest players and franchises, there is nothing much he can do.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

he will make it next year.
he ran into ultra terrible rigging this time.
outside of his game 5 choke( that wouldnt have mattered if the refs didnt rig) he was GREAT this series

[rhowen4]

when your career conincides with the greatest players and franchises, there is nothing much he can do.
yep

[BlackVVaves]

He averaged 22 and 12 in this series, and pretty sure his playoff numbers weren't too far off.

Think he deserves the criticism, but he performed exceptionally well.

However, his flopping tendencies costed his team Game 5, and Westbrook averaged 27 8 and 8 for the series against him.

If you're going to blame CP3, blame him for that. Otherwise? Not sure what else he could have done as a pass first point guard.

[PyrrhusX]

He forced his way out of New Orleans to a stacked team. What more do you think he needs to do?

Collude with 2 superstars and play in the weak as **** Eastern conference?

[SwishSquared]

He forced his way out of New Orleans to a stacked team. What more do you think he needs to do?
He went to a young team with potential and a below average coach. That Clippers team when he first got there was not stacked. This was the first year as a Clipper where CP3 had the supporting cast and coaching to make a deep run. Hopefully, they build off of this and get better next season. They badly need a good back-up big man and improve at SF imo. Maybe Doc won't lose a trade this summer like he did the Bledsoe deal.


Collude with 2 superstars and play in the weak as **** Eastern conference?
This. Had he and Dwight gone to Atlanta they would have made the ECF.
CP3-Korver-Carroll-Horford-Howard

[PyrrhusX]

This. Had he and Dwight gone to Atlanta they would have made the ECF.
CP3-Korver-Carroll-Horford-Howard

Atl v Heat would have been incredible if that team had eventuated :eek: :eek:

[uber]

but but but he's the best PG in the game :facepalm

[SwishSquared]

Atl v Heat would have been incredible if that team had eventuated :eek: :eek:
Would much rather watch that series than Pacers vs. Heat, Part III!

[Fudge]

Inb4 he pulls a LeBron and makes a trio of him, Dwight, and Melo.

[SillyRabbit]

Inb4 he pulls a LeBron and makes a trio of him, Dwight, and Melo.

This.

[francesco totti]

He also had a good team in new orleans, with west/chandler as his bigs. They were strong defensive team.

Think Clippers can get paul pierce , and that could be huge for them in playoffs ( not rs though).

[SyRyanYang]

Western conference though

[All Net]

When has he ever expected to? He was close this year but OKC were too good. Add a signing or two in the summer they will have as good a shot as anybody to make it deep.

[BoutPractice]

I don't think it's signings, they could've won the West this year already. Just a few bounces here and there really.

In any case, Chris Paul played his heart out and deserves nothing but respect for another great season.

[HomieWeMajor]

Not his fault.
The Clippers uniform aren't black enough.

[livingby3's]

Like Steve Nash, MVP who never made the finals.
Teams with PG as their best player and main focal of offense just don't cut it.

Ball movement within the entire team on the court > One star PG distributing

[Ball So Harden]

I don't think it's signings, they could've won the West this year already. Just a few bounces here and there really.

.

That is badass. You really think they are so good the NBA would of allowed them to play ahead of schedule and eliminate the Spurs?

[Marlo_Stanfield]

well he choked in game 5 but they still should have won the game if it wasnt for the most OBVIOUS rigjob in sports history. tonight he got called for fouls when westbook was stopping midcourt to let cP3 run into him or when Collison jumped on his head

[PsychoBe]

needs to go to the east

[Number24]

CP3 should blame Stern!

[BoutPractice]

That is badass. You really think they are so good the NBA would of allowed them to play ahead of schedule and eliminate the Spurs?
I do think they could've beaten the Spurs, yes. I'm by no means a Clippers fan, but there were clearly 3 contenders in the West: Spurs had the depth and quality of play, OKC the raw star power, and Clippers the right balance of elements. And although retrospectively it will not seem that way, the outcome of the Conference Finals is far from predetermined either... The East in comparison has only had 2 contenders, and one of the 2 comes with a huge (literally) question mark.

[LakersFan626]

When has he ever expected to? He was close this year but OKC were too good. Add a signing or two in the summer they will have as good a shot as anybody to make it deep.

This.

07-08 lost to Spurs
08-09 lost to Nuggets
10-11 lost to Lakers
11-12 lost to Spurs
12-13 lost to Grizzlies
13-14 lost to Thunder

The only time his team should have won was last year, and they probably would have made it to the conference finals with Westbrook injured (though they would have lost to the Spurs again). The Clippers got better this year with better role players and coaching but so did the Thunder with Ibaka now having a jumper and also getting better role players like Butler and Adams.

[Kblaze8855]

but but but he's the best PG in the game :facepalm

Indeed. Kinda like Oscar...who took 10 years to win 2 rounds. He won 2 playoff series in his entire career before being Kareems #2. Stockton went 8 years before making a conference finals....as a #2. Tiny Archibald didn't win a playoff series period until he and Bird played together in his final seasons. Pistol Pete followed up never making the NCAA tournament....also losing in the NIT....with not winning a playoff series his entire career until he was an 11 minute playing role player on the Celtics his final season. Kidd took 8 years before coming to a weaker conference and beating Celtic team that won like 42 games to get there.


The best point in the league not making the conference finals...when they aren't expected to...

Preeeeeeeetty common really. Though of course when its time to hate....there is no such thing as history.

[Ball So Harden]

I do think they could've beaten the Spurs, yes. I'm by no means a Clippers fan, but there were clearly 3 contenders in the West: Spurs had the depth and quality of play, OKC the raw star power, and Clippers the right balance of elements. And although retrospectively it will not seem that way, the outcome of the Conference Finals is far from predetermined either... The East in comparison has only had 2 contenders, and one of the 2 comes with a huge (literally) question mark.

You missed the whole point of my post :facepalm

[dunksby]

When has he ever expected to? He was close this year but OKC were too good. Add a signing or two in the summer they will have as good a shot as anybody to make it deep.
Last year is on him and Blake if you ask me, they had the tools but didn't step up to the challenge.

[Rake2204]

Inb4 he pulls a LeBron and makes a trio of him, Dwight, and Melo.I believe the difference that a lot of players trying to make super teams fail to realize is that none of them are LeBron James, aka one of the top three or four players of the past 30-40 years.

The Heat were never just three superstars trying to get together to have a better chance at a ring. It was one of the greatest of all-time grouping together with two fellow conference rivals to create a team that, truly, only needs to be functioning at about 60% capacity in order to win an NBA championship.

[Lebronxrings]

Inb4 he pulls a LeBron and makes a trio of him, Dwight, and Melo.
loser trio

[Basketbolero]

When has he ever expected to? He was close this year but OKC were too good. Add a signing or two in the summer they will have as good a shot as anybody to make it deep.
I hear this about his teams every year right after they get knocked out, last year included.

They went out and got Redick while keeping Crawford, also got Collison, Big Baby, Granger and Jared Dudley + Griffin and DJ got much better. The result is still the same and it's not like he was beasting and everybody else was choking....

Getting tired of the excuses with this guy.

[Basketbolero]

well he choked in game 5 but they still should have won the game if it wasnt for the most OBVIOUS rigjob in sports history. tonight he got called for fouls when westbook was stopping midcourt to let cP3 run into him or when Collison jumped on his head
Yeah, we all know you have low standards when it comes to point guards...

[stevieming]

should have gone to an eastern conference team...

anyway, CP3 cost clippers this series, quite disappointed with his play..

sure he had his usual assists and points but...

he dominated the ball too much
he had jeremy lin turnovers! game changers!
he should have demanded and trusted blake more..
gone to reddick more too...
got beat up by westbrook....(although not sure any one could have done much against godzilla this series...)
it was quite clear to me at the end of the game he had nothing left, always looked really tired....needs better fitness...

This should be Blake's team now, and CP3 needs to play second fiddle if he wants to get to the conf finals next year.

[Doranku]

I hear this about his teams every year right after they get knocked out, last year included.

They went out and got Redick while keeping Crawford, also got Collison, Big Baby, Granger and Jared Dudley + Griffin and DJ got much better. The result is still the same and it's not like he was beasting and everybody else was choking....

Getting tired of the excuses with this guy.

This. If he's as good as everyone says he is, best PG in the league etc, then he should have at LEAST one f*cking WCF showing. Especially when you look at the amount of help he's played with.

But of course, people continue to give him a free pass. Makes no sense. Even Melo made the Conference Finals. :oldlol: And he never had a team as good as this Clippers team.

[Mass Debator]

If Tony Allen was on the Clippers...

[riseagainst]

pass first point guards are useless in this era.

[Kblaze8855]

This. If he's as good as everyone says he is, best PG in the league etc, then he should have at LEAST one f*cking WCF showing.

And why exactly should that be the standard now when it literally never has been.....ever...in the history of the sport?

Did people wait till Cousy made an ECF to say he was the best point?

No.

Oscar? No. He won 2 series in 10 years.

Pistol Pete? No. He won nothing ever.

Tiny Archibald? No.

Magic was on a team with 2 other hall of famers and 2 other all stars in addition to them as a rookie. Be hard to hold Paul to the same standard.

Stockton, Tim, and Isiah were all deep in their career before they made it and arguments for them being the best points were years old before then. Hell Isiah peaked 2-3 years before his teams mattered.

Kidd was considered the best point here before he ever came to the Nets. I was here watching him get picked as the best when he was on Phoenix. No WCF there.

Since when has making a conference finals been required for anyone to be ranked anything?

Oscar was considered arguably the GOAT player and the consensus best point of all time before he won a playoff series. And he was losing in his prime with all nba first team bigmen and additional stars.

We deciding 70 years in that the best point should make some arbitrary round of the playoffs?

Please.

Nobody who knows the game ever has or would judge a player by some shit like losing in round 3 vs round 2. It means nothing.

Hell losing in the first round vs the ECF means next to nothing.

You win or you don't. And most who won as points did it as supporting players anyway.

There is no sound basketball argument to pull some random round out of your ass and decide that here....points can be called ____. Just no justification for it nor precedent in all the history of the sport. Considering how long Cousy, Oscar, Pistol, Tiny, Paul, Kidd, Stockton, Isiah and so on were in the running for best point while not contending.....we are probably in the area of 30 seasons where the leagues best point had a solid team and failed to make the conference finals. Cousy never did as best player and he had TWO all nba first team teammates and Red coaching them.

The best point in the league being on a good team that doesnt make the conference finals is too common to even attempt to make it some necessity to earn the title.

It happens in like...half the seasons ever.

Magic is the only top point to just win win win no matter what. And he was the size of a power forward and played with half the talent in the NBA vs a conference that sent like 4 sub .500 teams to the WCF during his career.

You really start looking into it...there isn't much to say about Paul you can say about the people who held his title before him.

The ones who really won had teams that made it difficult not to. I suspect that given 5 HOF players one of them the MVP like Walt Frazier he might ease into the conference finals himself.

[Mr Exlax]

Quick question. Has CP3 ever lost while being the favorite? Did any of his teams have a better record or higher seed when he lost? I would imagine against the Grizz they had a better record, but the Clipps had some key injuries iirc

[Basketbolero]

Quick question. Has CP3 ever lost while being the favorite? Did any of his teams have a better record or higher seed when he lost? I would imagine against the Grizz they had a better record, but the Clipps had some key injuries iirc
Well they could have got homecourt advantage to give themselves a better chance. OKC lost Westbrook for almost half of the season and still finished above them.

If that's your excuse for this series I'm afraid it is not enought, there were 2 very similar teams going at it and CP3 didn't exactly come through for hhis team.

One series doesn't change the fact that he is still the best PG in the game but some of you act as if he shouldn't get any criticism and that's just wrong to me.

[Mr Exlax]

Well they could have got homecourt advantage to give themselves a better chance. OKC lost Westbrook for almost half of the season and still finished above them.

If that's your excuse for this series I'm afraid it is not enought, there were 2 very similar teams going at it and CP3 didn't exactly come through for hhis team.

One series doesn't change the fact that he is still the best PG in the game but some of you act as if he shouldn't get any criticism and that's just wrong to me.

I didn't ask any of what you typed. I asked a simple question.

[Basketbolero]

I didn't ask any of what you typed. I asked a simple question.
Yes but your question implied he couldn't have done any better. He could.

[dunksby]

Well they could have got homecourt advantage to give themselves a better chance. OKC lost Westbrook for almost half of the season and still finished above them.

If that's your excuse for this series I'm afraid it is not enought, there were 2 very similar teams going at it and CP3 didn't exactly come through for hhis team.

One series doesn't change the fact that he is still the best PG in the game but some of you act as if he shouldn't get any criticism and that's just wrong to me.
Last year is the only season I would put major blame on the Clips stars for not showing up.

[imnew09]

Went to the wrong L.A

[avonbarksdale]

how come he gets a pass but melo doesnt?

[All Net]

No star gets a pass but it's not all his fault. Clippers were unlucky in this series. They also made bad decisions by blowing leads.

[Springsteen]

would quote kblaze's post but it's too long :applause: :applause: :applause: y'all a bunch of revisionists

[DMAVS41]

would quote kblaze's post but it's too long :applause: :applause: :applause: y'all a bunch of revisionists

This all depends on who Paul is being compared to. If people are comparing him to the best players in the game and true "superstars" to quote Skip Bayless....then Paul is over-rated and deserves quite a bit of hate for what is going on with these Clippers teams.

This stuff is really fragile. The Clippers might be in the conference finals right now if Paul didn't have one of the worst stretches in crunch time I've ever seen.

That was the series for the Clippers. Up 13 with 4 minutes to go. Up 7 with 45 seconds to go.

And you don't close as the point guard? Terrible.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

This all depends on who Paul is being compared to. If people are comparing him to the best players in the game and true "superstars" to quote Skip Bayless....then Paul is over-rated and deserves quite a bit of hate for what is going on with these Clippers teams.

This stuff is really fragile. The Clippers might be in the conference finals right now if Paul didn't have one of the worst stretches in crunch time I've ever seen.

That was the series for the Clippers. Up 13 with 4 minutes to go. Up 7 with 45 seconds to go.

And you don't close as the point guard? Terrible.

Word to the bold.. I'm all for saying dude is the best PG in the game, even underrated compared to his peers of today. but on an ALL TIME scale? The brother has got a lot of work to do.

His nightmare stretch in game 5 is one of THE worst chokes I've seen. Up there with Nick Anderson bricking FTs in Orlando.

[DMAVS41]

Chris Paul is one of my favorite players, but his nightmare stretch in game 5 single-handedly cost the Clippers a trip to the WCF.

One of the worst chokes I've seen since Nick Anderson bricking FTs in Orlando.

Word to the bold though.. I'm all for saying dude is the best PG in the game, even underrated compared to his peers of today. but on an ALL TIME scale? The brother has got a lot of work to do.

I like Paul as well. Probably the best or 2nd best guard in the league...WB is pretty ****ing good.

This is the issue Kblaze and I debated for days. Do you need to see the playoffs and a multitude of situations over a career to accurately rank a player? Or do you need just a few seasons to know how good someone is?

I obviously think it's the first one and what happens in the most important games in the playoffs really is indicative of how good someone is at basketball. Because I'm pretty sure Kblaze didn't think Paul was going to completely shit the bed in those last 45 seconds in game 5. Yet he did...and on some level we have to think less of him as a player for doing that. Especially as he's never gotten a team (and he's played with enough talent now) over the hump of the 2nd round.

That shit all matters when trying to accurately place a player in terms of how good they actually are at the game.

Like I said above. Paul doesn't choke his ass off in game 5 and I would have bet a ton of money on them to win game 6. Instead, I put even more on the Thunder last night and to win the series because it was obvious they weren't winning 2 in a row.

Fragile shit man...just so fragile. Thunder are straight up lucky to still be in the playoffs and they might win the title. If Paul literally just makes 1 less horrid crunch time play...they are in the WCF right now in my opinion.

[jzek]

PG version of Melo

[Real14]

how come he gets a pass but melo doesnt?
cuz he play for knicks:coleman:

[gts]

Stick with me here, might take a moment to get my thoughts out...

I think one of Paul's biggest hurdles with NBA fans is he is considered or touted to be top level "elite" type of player when the reality is he's a very good player who's kept out of the top tier by his own inconsistency, not just in skills but in effort/mental approach.

He's an odd one to breakdown,
Incredible skills there's no denying that.
High IQ can't that away from him the man knows the game.
A team leader, from all appearances over the years it seems his teammates love him love playing with him and his coaches love having him on the floor in that role...

On the flip side it's like every now and the the curtain is drawn back and we see a guy who despite the above attributes can...
Disappear, not just have a bad game but completely vanish in every facet of the game for stretches at a time for no rhyme or reason. He can be having a great game or bad game or ho hum game then poof where'd he go...
Gimmicky, the flopping, the cheap shots it's too ingrained in his play, it's not an occasional tool in his bag of tricks it's a big part of who he is as a player
The mental meltdowns in big games.. this series isn't the first where we've seen Paul blow it during the big moment...

I guess in the end you could say Paul is recognized for his skills but not embraced because he's not respected

[Kblaze8855]

Especially as he's never gotten a team (and he's played with enough talent now) over the hump of the 2nd round.

The second round is not a hump. Its a nothing people started mentioning like...the year before last.

Its nothing more than tailoring hate to fit the situation at hand. Cant say....never won in the playoffs...like with some others. So its "Never made it past the second round" as if anyone had ever even put those words in that order in the history of the world.

And there is no reason for Paul to be the exception. You look at the list of the people hes compared to...

The guys on his level and above were generally on teams that could make it to the conference finals without them(Magic, Frazier, Rondo, and Cousy..potentially Rose if the Bulls kept Deng in these awful playoffs)....they were in someone elses supporting cast(Stockton, Westbrook, and Timmy)...they failed to make noise with solid teams many times(Isiah and Oscar)....or they generally spent their careers losing(Tiny and Pistol Pete).

And several can fit into those categories depending on the time in question. Guys like Kidd, Price, and Payton.

Some get the luck of circumstance with injuries, absurdly talented teammates, and bad competition that allows them to do more than some others....and the one season is all you need to no longer be able to say ___ couldnt ___.

Deron Williams was his nemesis in the eyes of fans. Deron made it to the WCF and thus...is better. Ive read those exact words. Deron went like 1-12 for 2 points, with 7 assists and 6 turnovers as Derrick Fisher and Carlos Boozer powered his team past a 41 win second round opponent. But they won the deciding game.

Makes the third round.

People still use it as evidence.

There comes a point when you put basketball aside and just say....ISH is full of absolute ****ing idiots.

And they rarely shine so bright and make themselves so obvious as when Chris Paul comes up and some guy comes to flex his second grade basketball education by judging Pauls all time status as a point by his "inability" to do something people with half the ability back into all the time off sheer circumstance.

Its as if Paul would be better at basketball if he were in a conference so poor that if his team choked early there would be two sub.500 conference finals teams(Magic). Or if he played a team missing their best player in round 2(Lebron). Or if he lucked into a 40 win second round opponent because someone else choked(Deron).

We watch these things time and time again and then pretend they didnt happen.

Durant twists an ankle Paul wins a round and then hes elevated in the minds of people who dont really deserve the term "mind" being applied.

Nobody would even care how he got there in retrospect. Like how nobody says a word about Magic missing half the finals the Pistons won. They won and thats that. Therefore Isiah is now ____ as opposed to ____ where hed be if circumstance didnt let him win that year when he would be the exact same player if HE got hurt and Magic slayed the Pistons.

Its all a bad joke.

[DMAVS41]

The second round is not a hump. Its a nothing people started mentioning like...the year before last.

Its nothing more than tailoring hate to fit the situation at hand. Cant say....never won in the playoffs...like with some others. So its "Never made it past the second round" as if anyone had ever even put those words in that order in the history of the world.

And there is no reason for Paul to be the exception. You look at the list of the people hes compared to...

The guys on his level and above were generally on teams that could make it to the conference finals without them(Magic, Frazier, Rondo, and Cousy..potentially Rose if the Bulls kept Deng in these awful playoffs)....they were in someone elses supporting cast(Stockton, Westbrook, and Timmy)...they failed to make noise with solid teams many times(Isiah and Oscar)....or they generally spent their careers losing(Tiny and Pistol Pete).

And several can fit into those categories depending on the time in question. Guys like Kidd, Price, and Payton.

Some get the luck of circumstance with injuries, absurdly talented teammates, and bad competition that allows them to do more than some others....and the one season is all you need to no longer be able to say ___ couldnt ___.

Deron Williams was his nemesis in the eyes of fans. Deron made it to the WCF and thus...is better. Ive read those exact words. Deron went like 1-12 for 2 points, with 7 assists and 6 turnovers as Derrick Fisher and Carlos Boozer powered his team past a 41 win second round opponent. But they won the deciding game.

Makes the second round.

People still use it as evidence.

There comes a point when you put basketball aside and just say....ISH is full of absolute ****ing idiots.

And they rarely shine so bright and make themselves so obvious as when Chris Paul comes up and some guy comes to flex his second grade basketball education by judging Pauls all time status as a point by his "inability" to do something people with half the ability back into all the time off sheer circumstance.

Its as if Paul would be better at basketball if he were in a conference so poor that if his team choked early there would be two sub.500 conference teams. Or if he played a team missing their best player in round 2. Or if he lucked into a 40 win second round opponent because someone else choked.

We watch these things time and time again and then pretend they didnt happen.

Durant twists an ankle Paul wins a round and then hes elevated in the minds of people who dont really deserve the term "mind" being applied.

Nobody would even care how he got there in retrospect. Like how nobody says a word about Magic missing half the finals the Pistons won. They won and thats that. Therefore Isiah is now ____ as opposed to ____ where hed be if circumstance didnt let him that year.

Its all a bad joke.

It's not all or nothing. And like I have repeatedly said...it's about where people are actually ranking him or placing him.

If it's Deron level...then it doesn't matter at all. If it's elite player in the league MVP candidate type guy...it should matter he hasn't gotten a team past the 2nd round in his career.

I'm interested though....did you think that Paul would crumble like that in game 5? Did you just "know" that was going to happen like you always say?

Considering you have already made up your mind on Paul years ago and basically say that nothing these guys do changes your opinion once you've made up your mind.

I'm just curious if you thought Paul was the type of player to throw a game away like he did in game 5....and then learn nothing from up in game 6 and make a couple other boneheaded plays again.

At some point one of the best point guards ever is going to get criticism for not getting super talented teams past the 2nd round. Just the way it is. As it should be...and his failure to come through for his team is a reflection of how good at basketball he actually is. It's part of his makeup as a basketball player....just like his shooting, passing, toughness, flopping, leadership...etc...all make up his game. So does how a player performs in crucial situations/moments...and I think that is what you really miss when evaluating players.

There is no lack of skillset that causes Paul to do some of the things he did.

[GoSpursGo1984]

The second round is not a hump. Its a nothing people started mentioning like...the year before last.

Its nothing more than tailoring hate to fit the situation at hand. Cant say....never won in the playoffs...like with some others. So its "Never made it past the second round" as if anyone had ever even put those words in that order in the history of the world.

And there is no reason for Paul to be the exception. You look at the list of the people hes compared to...

The guys on his level and above were generally on teams that could make it to the conference finals without them(Magic, Frazier, Rondo, and Cousy..potentially Rose if the Bulls kept Deng in these awful playoffs)....they were in someone elses supporting cast(Stockton, Westbrook, and Timmy)...they failed to make noise with solid teams many times(Isiah and Oscar)....or they generally spent their careers losing(Tiny and Pistol Pete).

And several can fit into those categories depending on the time in question. Guys like Kidd, Price, and Payton.

Some get the luck of circumstance with injuries, absurdly talented teammates, and bad competition that allows them to do more than some others....and the one season is all you need to no longer be able to say ___ couldnt ___.

Deron Williams was his nemesis in the eyes of fans. Deron made it to the WCF and thus...is better. Ive read those exact words. Deron went like 1-12 for 2 points, with 7 assists and 6 turnovers as Derrick Fisher and Carlos Boozer powered his team past a 41 win second round opponent. But they won the deciding game.

Makes the third round.

People still use it as evidence.

There comes a point when you put basketball aside and just say....ISH is full of absolute ****ing idiots.

And they rarely shine so bright and make themselves so obvious as when Chris Paul comes up and some guy comes to flex his second grade basketball education by judging Pauls all time status as a point by his "inability" to do something people with half the ability back into all the time off sheer circumstance.

Its as if Paul would be better at basketball if he were in a conference so poor that if his team choked early there would be two sub.500 conference teams. Or if he played a team missing their best player in round 2. Or if he lucked into a 40 win second round opponent because someone else choked.

We watch these things time and time again and then pretend they didnt happen.

Durant twists an ankle Paul wins a round and then hes elevated in the minds of people who dont really deserve the term "mind" being applied.

Nobody would even care how he got there in retrospect. Like how nobody says a word about Magic missing half the finals the Pistons won. They won and thats that. Therefore Isiah is now ____ as opposed to ____ where hed be if circumstance didnt let him that year.

Its all a bad joke.

I stopped reading when you compared him to Magic, Cousy, Kidd he has done nothing to be as good as them. You lost any credibility you had there.

[Kblaze8855]

I feel you will know what im talking about so I wont go into a long explanation on the situations im mentioning...

I didnt think Magic would ever do what I saw him do vs the Celtics.

Nor would I have assumed Isiah would do what he did when he could have just called timeout and Bird was lurking.

I bet fans at the time didnt expect Cousy to go 2-20 in game 7.

Im pretty sure nobody expected Jerry West to shoot 32% in the finals.

Know what I file it under?

"Shit happens".

You start finding the worst that anyone ever did and really using it as if that 5 minutes says more about them than the skills that put them in a position where them failing shocks you...

You get to underrating people real fast.

Only the true greats have their failures even stand out and stand the test of time. Know why?

People who arent that great....do it all the time.

The only reason Chris Paul can be clowned after a 17/14 4 steals game he screwed up late in...is because hes great enough for 17/14 to not be enough to say he had a great game.

And every player you can say that of....is among the best who ever did it.

[Kblaze8855]

I stopped reading when you compared him to Magic, Cousy, Kidd he has done nothing to be as good as them. You lost any credibility you had there.

So even when MVP Bob Cousy takes two all NBA first team teammates to a first round loss while shooting 28% he cant be compared to Chris Paul...because Bill Russell eventually arrived and gifted him 6 rings before winning 5 more without him?

If you believe merely existing on a team that wins 5 rings without you makes you incomparable to people factually superior who won more as leaders I think I can handle losing credibility in your mind.

There isnt anything in that mind I crave validation from.

[DMAVS41]

I feel you will know what im talking about so I wont go into a long explanation on the situations im mentioning...

I didnt think Magic would ever do what I saw him do vs the Celtics.

Nor would I have assumed Isiah would do what he did when he could have just called timeout and Bird was lurking.

I bet fans at the time didnt expect Cousy to go 2-20 in game 7.

Im pretty sure nobody expected Jerry West to shoot 32% in the finals.

Know what I file it under?

"Shit happens".

You start finding the worst that anyone ever did and really using it as if that 5 minutes says more about them than the skills that put them in a position where them failing shocks you...

You get to underrating people real fast.

Only the true greats have their failures even stand out and stand the test of time. Know why?

People who arent that great....do it all the time.

The only reason Chris Paul can be clowned after a 17/14 4 steals game he screwed up late in...is because hes great enough for 17/14 to not be enough to say he had a great game.

And every player you can say that of....is among the best who ever did it.


Yea, but what you always fail to realize...and I've tried to explain this to you before;

Is that we are trying to specifically and accurately rank players both currently and all time.

If it's just a broad statement that CP3 is a great pointguard or that player x is great overall. Then we both agree...and I've repeatedly said that.

However, when we get into very specific conversations like, for example, the thread where this all started about Durant being better than Kobe ever was. Well, I'm going to need to see more out of Durant than going 11 of 43 in the two biggest games of the year. And, the only reason he's not getting destroyed right now and accepting his MVP at home was because he lucked into having a stacked team.

I'm just in favor of taking every single thing into the equation when determining how good a player actually is. So while I think Durant should be at home right now based on his play. I also will continue to evaluate what he does...and he was huge last night...and again, that factors in for me.

And the Magic example doesn't really fit or any player that has finished their career because we have all the data. And not only that, but Magic was also already a proven championship guy by then as well.

This is in real time. It's the same thing about Lebron in 11. If he never played another game in his career after 11....you'd have to think differently about him than we do now. It just wouldn't make sense not to.

[Raymone]

He forced his way out of New Orleans to a stacked team. What more do you think he needs to do?

Join proven winners like Wade, Bosh and Allen. Not scrubs like Griffin and DeAndre.

[Kblaze8855]

I'm interested though....did you think that Paul would crumble like that in game 5? Did you just "know" that was going to happen like you always say?

It is interesting how you just refuse to stop quoting me on things you made up. You do it every time I speak to you. You once asked me if I "really" felt Paul was way better than Kidd when I didnt say it there...or ever. You really need to stop that. If you quote me...quote me. Show me I said it.

What you are talking about is me telling you once...that I dont adjust players off a week of play their skillset and performances suggested to me was possible.

When KG wins in the first round I dont bump him up...he was one of the best ever already. Circumstances fell his way. When Dirk lost to the Warriors I...the supposed Dirk hater...did not join in on the Dirk is worse than ___" and have showed you my quotes from the very day. And I didnt go the other way and bump him up when he won.

When someone loses...I dont assume they got worse.

And you dont get better and worse as quickly as a buzzer sounds.

People just act like it because thinking is difficult.

I judge players based on their ability to play. They are capable of a wide range of performances. Jordan might go 5-19 in the finals....Magic might dribble out the clock....Bill Russell might throw a ball off a wire and need Hondo to bail him out and steal the ball back.

Seeing roughly what a guy is capable of doesnt mean he isnt just as capable of off nights or "You cannot be serious!" mistakes.

Being capable of terrible play just makes one human.

[DMAVS41]

It is interesting how you just refuse to stop quoting me on things you made up. You do it every time I speak to you. You once asked me if I "really" felt Paul was way better than Kidd when I didnt say it there...or ever. You really need to stop that. If you quote me...quote me. Show me I said it.

What you are talking about is me telling you once...that I dont adjust players off a week of play their skillset and performances suggested to me was possible.

When KG wins in the first round I dont bump him up...he was one of the best ever already. Circumstances fell his way. When Dirk lost to the Warriors I...the supposed Dirk hater...did not join in on the Dirk is worse than ___" and have showed you my quotes from the very day. And I didnt go the other way and bump him up when he won.

When someone loses...I dont assume they got worse.

And you dont get better and worse as quickly as a buzzer sounds.

People just act like it because thinking is difficult.

I judge players based on their ability to play. They are capable of a wide range of performances. Jordan might go 5-19 in the finals....Magic might dribble out the clock....Bill Russell might throw a ball off a wire and need Hondo to bail him out and steal the ball back.

Seeing roughly what a guy is capable of doesnt mean he isnt just as capable of off nights.

Being capable of terrible play just makes one human.


Neither do I.

You act like I'm saying we should now say;

"well, Paul just sucks"


No...not at all. I'm saying we should take everything in...and never stop evaluating players.

Chris Paul has been one of the best crunch time players of this era. However, in the two biggest games of the year...he came up really small. Wasn't because he didn't have enough help. Wasn't because of anything other than him wetting the bed with a chance to go to the WCF. I'm saying that should factor in on some level as to how good at basketball Paul is.

We now know, that in that situation, this year, Paul is going to crumble in crunch time when his team needs him the most.

Does it make up 10% of Paul's position or something? Hell no, but it's one of many variables that we have.

And it's really not that complicated. These guys don't have 1,000 big moments in their careers in the playoffs. There is a limited number of this stuff and we can evaluate it rather easily.


Again, this is in real time, Dirk playing like shit in 07 should impact how good one thought he was. It just shouldn't change your opinion completely, but it should factor in.

Now that we can reflect back...that is more of an anomaly and can be easily explained both by on and off court things.

I'll keep going back to Lebron in 11. If he never plays another game in his career...we all know it would impact how good at basketball we would think he is...and rightfully so.

There is a huge difference between having the ability to do something and actually doing it.

I'm not sure why you fight that so much. Sometimes the difference in players is not talent or basketball skill...it's other things. And one big one is simply actually doing the shit in key moments you are capable of.

[Young X]

^ He had 14 points in the 4th quarter last game, how is that coming up small? He was terrible down the stretch in game 5 (wouldn't have mattered if the refs made the correct calls), but he was good in game 6, KD was just better as expected.

[Kblaze8855]

Of course its other things. Thats the "circumstance" part.

30 things can win or lose you a game that change nothing about who you are.

But people always go bottom line because as I said...thinking must be difficult. Its not even just basketball. Its pretty much all team sports.

This is me from 7 years ago:



Just a bunch of easily manipulated bandwaggoners. Half of sports fans dont care how good anyone is. just who wins. Not how. Now how much help. just if they get the W.

If football is that simple I dont even need to watch. Ive watched groups of 5 dozen people win and lose for 20 something years and ive yet to see a guy gain or lose one bit of talent when it happened. 5 dozen people winning doesnt make the one whos name is most known better than it was 3 seconds before the horn blows.

Just an easy answer. An easy way to rank players that removes the ranker from any reason to think for himself.

"This group of 5 dozen players and coaches beat that group of 5 dozen....the guy who is interview first after the game for the first team must be better!"

Just disgusts me. In the NFL most of all. I nthe NBA one guy can kind take over. The NFL?

One guy in kickoff coverage can blow your season. A fumbled snap on a field goal can lose you a playoff game. A coach going for 2 instead of 1 can make you lose 45 minutes later. A reciever dropping a ball. a Running back breaking a tackle. A lineman holding. a guy getting too hyped after a stop causing a penalty. Accidentally brushing the kicker after he gets it off. Kicker kicking it out of bounds on the last kicoff of the superbowl to give the other team 20 yards more field position can decide a title....

And all have happened.

Sometimes I feel like im the only person who sees how complex football is. How anyone can look at 5 dozen people all of whom can make or break a game on almost every single play and use it to decide which one guy is best......

It baffles me.

It just will not end....

One twisted ankle and Chris Paul is a "winner" now....

How id love to look into that alternate universe and post some of the nonsense that would result. Especially when they lost in the WCF anyway and the same people making a second round win out to be a big deal would be downplaying it like it didnt matter(and it doesnt).

Kinda like dude who made the "PLEASE dont excuse Chris Paul losing in the first round because of Sterling" topic coming back when they won and saying "Great game by paul....but hes still overrated till they make the finals"

Logic does not factor in.

Its a floating standard moved just out of reach by people who have hate in their hearts and little in their heads.

And its getting worse every year.

[DMAVS41]

Of course its other things. Thats the "circumstance" part.

30 things can win or lose you a game that change nothing about who you are.

But people always go bottom line because as I said...thinking must be difficult. Its not even just basketball. Its pretty much all team sports.

This is me from 7 years ago:




It just will not end....

One twisted ankle and Chris Paul is a "winner" now....

How id love to look into that alternate universe and post some of the nonsense that would result. Especially when they lost in the WCF anyway and the same people making a second round win out to be a big deal would be downplaying it.


Kinda like dude who made the "PLEASE dont excuse Chris Paul losing in the first round because of Sterling" topic coming back when they won and saying "Great game by paul....but hes still overrated till they make the finals"

Logic does not factor in.

Its a floating standard moved just out of reach by people who have hate in their hearts and little in their heads.

And its getting worse every year.


I'm not in favor of your way or the way you are speaking to either.

Again, it's not all or nothing.

You just factor everything in...and instead of saying "shit happens" like you do. At least in real time, we should factor everything into what makes up a player and how he performs in certain situations is part of that.

Doing something is simply more important than having the ability to do something.

That is my issue with you. You throw your hands up and say "shit happens"...

I say, hmmm...interesting these last two games. Shit does happen, but Paul also really blew it. I'm going to factor that into my feelings on how good at basketball Paul is.

I think my way, obviously, reaches the better conclusions ultimately as I never stop evaluating (well, obviously what older players like Dirk/Duncan/Kobe/KG...etc. do now don't mean much to me) until the career is over.

I'm not advocating for sweeping changes and over-reactions. You are talking to a ghost on that one.

But, meh, in real time...this should impact what we think about Paul.

[sammichoffate]

No pass this year...Just no...Tired of seeing that franchise and its players talk so much **** in the regular season and not show up in the playoffs. No more passes for CP3, Carmelo made it to the WCF with a worse team ffs :facepalm

[MellowYellow]

how come he gets a pass but melo doesnt?

he should get less of a pass, cuz his teams have been much more stacked than Melos teams.

[Kblaze8855]

If id not seen shit happen so many times perhaps id stop saying it.

Im not going to give you a 30 player rundown of people better than paul having head scratching performances and failures(I think you will take my word for it that I could)...ill just say this....

You look hard enough everyone has those moments and most have several. all they do is keep the greats from attaining godhood.

They all get overblown for 3 weeks then people pretend they never happened because in the big picture....it doesnt matter.

Im sure Issac Newton fumbled once or twice on a formula. doesnt mean we need to factor it into his genius.

It just means he fails like all of us fail.

Chris Paul like everyone else is going to be remembered for his game and his successes.

Perhaps the only major player in american sports history who seems to have his failures brought up more than his positives these days is Wilt Chamberlain.

Nobody is gonna give a shit Paul fumbled the ball away mid series in a series there is no reason to talk about in the future.

You say you want to get all time rankings down..consider this.

Anyone even know what Jerry West did when he scored just 18 and they lost to the Hawks in 64? I do. I read about it. Do most people? Do you?

No?

Of course not.

Why would you? Nobody ever has or ever will bump him up or down a notch because of it.

Because in the end you are your game. Not what your haters laugh at when you prove to be human.

These situations are hater fodder for a month then nobody cares it happened.

[DMAVS41]

If id not seen shit happen so many times perhaps id stop saying it.

Im not going to give you a 30 player rundown of people better than paul having head scratching performances and failures(I think you will take my word for it that I could)...ill just say this....

You look hard enough everyone has those moments and most have several. all they do is keep the greats from attaining godhood.

They all get overblown for 3 weeks then people pretend they never happened because in the big picture....it doesnt matter.

Im sure Issac Newton fumbled once or twice on a formula. doesnt mean we need to factor it into his genius.

It just means he fails like all of us fail.

Chris Paul like everyone else is going to be remembered for his game and his successes.

Perhaps the only major player in american sports history who seems to have his failures brought up more than his positives these days is Wilt Chamberlain.

Nobody is gonna give a shit Paul fumbled the ball away mid series in a series there is no reason to talk about in the future.

You say you want to get all time rankings down..consider this.

Anyone even know what Jerry West did when he scored just 18 and they lost to the Hawks in 64? I do. I read about it. Do most people? Do you?

No?

Of course not.

Why would you? Nobody ever has or ever will bump him up or down a notch because of it.

Because in the end you are your game. Not what your haters laugh at when you prove to be human.

These situations are hater fodder for a month then nobody cares it happened.


It's just a different philosophy.

You don't care what happens in the actual games in the playoffs once your mind is made up about a player.

I do.

It's literally as simple as that.

[Kblaze8855]

I suppose I could say "I care how good a basketball player is not what 12 people do" if I wanted to pretend your view was that simple. But I wont.There is a difference between thinking someone is wrong and thinking they are an idiot.

[PsychoBe]

is kblaze really trying to say that cp3's choke job doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things?

dude hasn't been in a wcf in a decade and the year before this he had never even won a game in the second round.

he left new orleans with "no help" (despite having tyson chandler who went on to be a championship defensive anchor and david west who went on to being an integral part of the top eastern team's offense and defense) to join forces with blake griffin and make something happen.

but nothing happened.

what can we say cp3 accomplished? pretty stats? that's literally all he's been his entire career. just good numbers with nothing substantiated behind it.

i think the answer is simple. the pg era is fool's gold. you cannot win with a pg as your best player these days. it just can't happen. cp3 is no exception to this rule. his ball-dominant and near cancerous style of play doesn't make-up for his lack of defensive versatility or offensive passiveness. he's too busy trying to make the "right" play all the time when that's literally impossible. the only "right" play is the winning play.

and he wasn't won anything yet.

[DMAVS41]

I suppose I could say "I care how good a basketball player is not what 12 people do" if I wanted to pretend your view was that simple. But I wont.There is a difference between thinking someone is wrong and thinking they are an idiot.

I don't know what that means.

All I am saying is that when you say;

"you are your game"

I think how you define "your game" there is limited. I think how a player plays in key situations in the playoffs and games...how they lead. How tough they are. What they do with their backs against the wall...on and on and on.

All of that is part of the "your game" you always refer to.

So I think your way is limited. Like you saying you don't need to see Kevin Love play a playoff game and you already know exactly how good he is. To me that is absurd.

[Kblaze8855]

is kblaze really trying to say that cp3's choke job doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things?

Lets forget Paul for a moment.

When has a player not making it past the second round been a big deal.....ever.

Just let me know. When has that ever been newsworthy or an extensive discussion?

Wanna name the other players who lost to a higher seeded team in the second round and people decided its important?

[DMAVS41]

is kblaze really trying to say that cp3's choke job doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things?

dude hasn't been in a wcf in a decade and the year before this he had never even won a game in the second round.

he left new orleans with "no help" (despite having tyson chandler who went on to be a championship defensive anchor and david west who went on to being an integral part of the top eastern team's offense and defense) to join forces with blake griffin and make something happen.

but nothing happened.

what can we say cp3 accomplished? pretty stats? that's literally all he's been his entire career. just good numbers with nothing substantiated behind it.

i think the answer is simple. the pg era is fool's gold. you cannot win with a pg as your best player these days. it just can't happen. cp3 is no exception to this rule. his ball-dominant and near cancerous style of play doesn't make-up for his lack of defensive versatility or offensive passiveness. he's too busy trying to make the "right" play all the time when that's literally impossible. the only "right" play is the winning play.

and he wasn't won anything yet.

We all know going into this series if someone were to say;

"hey, at the end of the pivotal game 5, one of either Paul/WB will do the following";

One player will crumble down the stretch of a game up 7 with 45 seconds to go. Turning the ball over for no reason and then fouling a 3 point shooter and then turning it over on the last play without getting a shot up.

One player will make key winning plays down the stretch and go to the line and ice the game by making 3 straight ft's...etc.

Pick which one you think is Paul and which one you think is Westbrook.

We all know the answers. And the fact that Paul did that matters. Just like it matters that WB potentially saved the Thunder's season in game 5 with an epic game.

That shit matters. It doesn't mean we now have to over-react and say Paul sucks or that WB is clearly better or some crap like that.

But to evaluate that and just say, in real time mind you, "shit happens"...what?

[D.J.]

You have to compare CP3 with other great point guards in the past:


-Kidd
-Nash
-Payton
-Stockton


No one is knocking CP3 for not winning a title. There have been quite a few great players who came close but didn't win one. But the difference is they all made the Conference Finals on multiple occasions. Kidd made the Finals twice, losing both. Nash didn't make the Finals, but reached the WCF three times. Payton made the Finals once and reached the WCF on another occasion. Stockton made the Finals twice and the WCF another three times. Kidd and Payton both won rings, but both were 38 and nothing more than role players.

You could also use this for great players from other positions such as Malone, Ewing, and Reggie Miller. They may not have rings, but they made the Conference Finals on multiple occasions and the Finals. At some point, CP3 has to looked at as a failure. Him not winning a ring isn't what people are complaining about. It's the fact he's never been past round 2 where as other all-time greats from his position(and other positions) have.

[Kblaze8855]

I don't know what that means.

All I am saying is that when you say;

"you are your game"

I think how you define "your game" there is limited. I think how a player plays in key situations in the playoffs and games...how they lead. How tough they are. What they do with their backs against the wall...on and on and on.

All of that is part of the "your game" you always refer to.

So I think your way is limited. Like you saying you don't need to see Kevin Love play a playoff game and you already know exactly how good he is. To me that is absurd.


And to me that is you lying or more likely...giving youself less credit than you should. If he never makes the playoffs while hes in his prime(It happens...see SAR)....you dont just watch him for 10 years and not form a valid opinion.

He is what he is. And he would be that even if two injuries let him be the 8th seed instead of the 10th. We would just get to see him lose 4 more times.

[DMAVS41]

Lets forget Paul for a moment.

When has a player not making it past the second round been a big deal.....ever.

Just let me know. When has that ever been newsworthy or an extensive discussion?

Wanna name the other players who lost to a higher seeded team in the second round and people decided its important?

It depends on the context of the discussion. Steve Nash never making the finals matters if he's compared to other MVP's. Paul never making it out of the 2nd round matters if he's compared to a certain level of player.

Again, nobody mentions shit like that if it's a broad statement about Paul being an excellent player or comparing him to ****ing Deron Williams or something.

You aren't giving people enough credit.

It depends on the context.

Take Melo, for example, if he's compared to Durant or Lebron or elite players. It should matter that he hasn't made the finals or that he's been poor in the playoffs. But if you are comparing him to, Rudy Gay...it doesn't matter.

Do you really not see how the context of shit matters?

This shit comes about when you have people saying;

Durant is better than Kobe ever was...and I know you didn't say that, but you also said you didn't need to see what Durant does in the playoffs to evaluate his game.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that makes sense.

[Kblaze8855]

It's the fact he's never been past round 2 where as other all-time greats from his position(and other positions) have.

Every single player you mentioned were as good....before they did it. And as good in many season they did not.

How are such things lost on some?

Oscar wins 2 series between 1960 and 1971.

Hes not an all time great? Or does he get to be one since one series win put him in the ECF one time?

How does that work exactly?

2 series wins in his life as a team leader.

Hes untouchable because one win put you in the conference finals at the time?

[DMAVS41]

And to me that is you lying or more likely...giving youself less credit than you should. If he never makes the playoffs while hes in his prime(It happens...see SAR)....you dont just watch him for 10 years and not form a valid opinion.

He is what he is. And he would be that even if two injuries let him be the 8th seed instead of the 10th. We would just get to see him lose 4 more times.

I'm not saying you don't form a valid opinion.

I'm saying you don't really know enough about him because how a player plays in the playoffs is a huge piece of my equation.

I don't know how else to say it. I can absolutely form a valid opinion about Love just like you can. All I'm saying is that not seeing him perform in the playoffs really leaves a gaping hole in the data available for us to reach a conclusion I'm comfortable in.

[PsychoBe]

We all know going into this series if someone were to say;

"hey, at the end of the pivotal game 5, one of either Paul/WB will do the following";

One player will crumble down the stretch of a game up 7 with 45 seconds to go. Turning the ball over for no reason and then fouling a 3 point shooter and then turning it over on the last play without getting a shot up.

One player will make key winning plays down the stretch and go to the line and ice the game by making 3 straight ft's...etc.

Pick which one you think is Paul and which one you think is Westbrook.

We all know the answers. And the fact that Paul did that matters. Just like it matters that WB potentially saved the Thunder's season in game 5 with an epic game.

That shit matters. It doesn't mean we now have to over-react and say Paul sucks or that WB is clearly better or some crap like that.

But to evaluate that and just say, in real time mind you, "shit happens"...what?

exactly. i understand if cp3 was already a proven winner, but he's not, and moments like that are why he isn't. the game is easy in the middle of the 2nd and 3rd quarter. you're just running your sets over and over again and minding your defensive rotations. that's literally it.

but when the game is on the line, all that is thrown out the window. now you have to use your situation awareness as well as past experiences to attempt to predict what the defense will do and you also have to be able to anticipate how teams will react to you and how to, for example, not only protect a lead but to get a game-winning shot up.

cp3 wasn't able to do any of that effectively and that might have been because he wasn't ever put in that position enough which is also due to the fact that he's just not a proven winner.

period.

i mean, most shooters/scorers who attempt a game-winning spot immediately run to their sweetest spot on the court and just go. they don't care if it's over 3 defenders they're gonna get the shot off and live with the consequences. but to not even get a shot off and to turn the ball over again when your team needed you the most?

that speaks volumes, and as of right NOW, cp3 deserves every bit of criticism that comes his way.

[Kblaze8855]

It depends on the context of the discussion. Steve Nash never making the finals matters if he's compared to other MVP's. Paul never making it out of the 2nd round matters if he's compared to a certain level of player.

Again, nobody mentions shit like that if it's a broad statement about Paul being an excellent player or comparing him to ****ing Deron Williams or something.

You aren't giving people enough credit.

It depends on the context.

Take Melo, for example, if he's compared to Durant or Lebron or elite players. It should matter that he hasn't made the finals or that he's been poor in the playoffs. But if you are comparing him to, Rudy Gay...it doesn't matter.

Do you really not see how the context of shit matters?

This shit comes about when you have people saying;

Durant is better than Kobe ever was...and I know you didn't say that, but you also said you didn't need to see what Durant does in the playoffs to evaluate his game.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that makes sense.


If Kevin Love retires tomorrow you have no means by which to evaluate him as a basketball player. I dont see how that makes sense since you watched him play basketball for years.

Seems we dont make sense to eachother.

[DMAVS41]

Every single player you mentioned were as good....before they did it. And as good in many season they did not.

How are such things lost on some?

Oscar wins 2 series between 1960 and 1971.

Hes not an all time great? Or does he get to be one since one series win put him in the ECF one time?

How does that work exactly?

2 series wins in his life as a team leader.

Hes untouchable because one win put you in the conference finals at the time?

How a player performs is a product of how good at basketball they are. Why do you separate the two?

Nobody would be saying anything about Paul if he played great, but he played like shit in the two key sequences with the series on the line.

Again...how these guys perform is directly related to how good they are at playing the damn game.

And I'd love to hear how Paul's "game" prevented him from playing well in crunch time the last two nights.

[DMAVS41]

If Kevin Love retires tomorrow you have no means by which to evaluate him as a basketball player. I dont see how that makes sense since you watched him play basketball for years.

Seems we dont make sense to eachother.

What?

Stop the straw men please. I just got done saying we can evaluate him.

What I'm saying is that if Love were to retire tomorrow...there would be a gaping hole in terms of the data needed to accurately evaluate players.

Part of the missing data would be Love on legit playoff teams, then legit contenders, then seeing how he performs in the multitude of situations players face in the playoffs.

Please stop the straw men. It gets really annoying.

[NumberSix]

It's tough when Deuxrant's step daddy is reffing the series.

[MellowYellow]

Lets forget Paul for a moment.

When has a player not making it past the second round been a big deal.....ever.

Just let me know. When has that ever been newsworthy or an extensive discussion?

Wanna name the other players who lost to a higher seeded team in the second round and people decided its important?

everytime that Lebrick lost in the 2nd round, it was a HUGE deal

[PsychoBe]

If Kevin Love retires tomorrow you have no means by which to evaluate him as a basketball player. I dont see how that makes sense since you watched him play basketball for years.

Seems we dont make sense to eachother.

compare kevin love to lamarcus aldridge and blake griffin :roll: :roll: :roll:

two of them have actually been to the playoffs. one hasn't.

it's not hard dude.

great players are able to do great things when it matters the most.

good players can do great things but only when it is (seemingly) convenient for them.

the difference between an all-star and a super-star is the same thing.

an all-star can get you on the road to the playoffs (unless you're kevin love) but a super-star can get you over the hump consistently.

[Rake2204]

I don't know what that means.

All I am saying is that when you say;

"you are your game"

I think how you define "your game" there is limited. I think how a player plays in key situations in the playoffs and games...how they lead. How tough they are. What they do with their backs against the wall...on and on and on.

All of that is part of the "your game" you always refer to.

So I think your way is limited. Like you saying you don't need to see Kevin Love play a playoff game and you already know exactly how good he is. To me that is absurd.I think there's a middle ground here. My philosophy most closely matches KBlaze's, but I can see what you are saying as well to an extent.

Personally, I do not prefer to judge individual players off of how far the teams they played for advanced in the playoffs. I find this to be a largely inaccurate way of judging one's skill because, well, it's a team sport. An individual can help a team perform better, but sometimes better may mean winning 48 games instead of 18, not just winning a championship or not (or advancing past a certain round).

As for what it means when we see Chris Paul lose possession of the rock in a "wait to be fouled" situation, I think it's a slippery slope. Would it make sense to definitively conclude that he struggles in end-of-game situations? When Kevin Durant misses a three point attempt from the left wing with four minutes remaining in the second quarter, do we quickly conclude or take into account that Kevin Durant may struggle to make shots from the wing during non-pressure situations?

I almost find all of this to be somewhat philosophical. I'm trying to picture... if one of my teammates was averaging 20ppg, 11apg, and 3spg, and he's someone who's been doing that for years, and he's perhaps the biggest reason we've advanced as far as we'd found ourselves and then one game he made a crucial mistake that contributed to a devastating loss, would I consider him less of a player? I do not believe so.

Furthermore, if that player played as well as he did and poured his heart into the game, only for us (his surrounding unit) to struggle a little, to the point of not being able to emerge victorious, would I find that teammate of mine any less skilled? Once again, I do not believe so.


YThis is in real time. It's the same thing about Lebron in 11. If he never played another game in his career after 11....you'd have to think differently about him than we do now. It just wouldn't make sense not to.I believe this portion of your post may best help illustrate my stance. LeBron James has been LeBron James to me since 2007, if not earlier. Whether his team earned a ring did not define how incredible of a player I found him to be. The year his Cavaliers lost to the Magic in the Eastern Conference Finals in six games, I believe one of those Cavs losses came by a single point and possibly another in overtime. For many, it went down as simply, "LeBron losses again! Can't win!" Such simplification feels borderline insulting.

Similarly, I reveled in the Heat's collapse in 2011. I really didn't like the idea of one of the all-time greats joining up with two Dream Teamers in his prime in hopes of easily cranking out some rings. Still, the Heat's collective dysfunction (not a lot of teams, historically, have experience in how to meld two primed out super duper stars together in their first season together) did not lead me to believe that James was somehow less of a player than he was the year before. Yes, his numbers were down in the Finals, but I do not believe it's as simple as saying, "He played bad, he's now less good." The most important question would be, "Why did he not produce as he had in the past?" And the answer will often go well beyond his own personal input and abilities.

Just the same, does the fact that LeBron James eventually broke through and won multiple rings with Super Team really make that much of a difference to me? Not really. I've been witnessing his greatness for a long time. I bet he improved along the way, but I feel the rings had much more to do with a change of circumstance than anything he did individually. His greatness was there all along.

[D.J.]

Every single player you mentioned were as good....before they did it. And as good in many season they did not.

How are such things lost on some?

Oscar wins 2 series between 1960 and 1971.

Hes not an all time great? Or does he get to be one since one series win put him in the ECF one time?

How does that work exactly?

2 series wins in his life as a team leader.

Hes untouchable because one win put you in the conference finals at the time?


Oscar also won a title as the starting point. He obviously wasn't on Kareem's level, but 19/8/6 is still elite and he was just a year removed from averaging 25/8/6. Oscar got it done when it mattered. It was just like when LeBron was coming up short prior to '12 and people wanted to compare him to Jordan, Kobe, and the like and it just wasn't happening. Without deep playoff runs at a bare minimum, you can only go so far. And to really go far, you need rings.

[Young X]

You have to compare CP3 with other great point guards in the past:


-Kidd
-Nash
-Payton
-Stockton


No one is knocking CP3 for not winning a title. There have been quite a few great players who came close but didn't win one. But the difference is they all made the Conference Finals on multiple occasions. Kidd made the Finals twice, losing both. Nash didn't make the Finals, but reached the WCF three times. Payton made the Finals once and reached the WCF on another occasion. Stockton made the Finals twice and the WCF another three times. Kidd and Payton both won rings, but both were 38 and nothing more than role players.

You could also use this for great players from other positions such as Malone, Ewing, and Reggie Miller. They may not have rings, but they made the Conference Finals on multiple occasions and the Finals. At some point, CP3 has to looked at as a failure. Him not winning a ring isn't what people are complaining about. It's the fact he's never been past round 2 where as other all-time greats from his position(and other positions) have.So Paul is a failure because he's losing to teams better than his every year? He averages 22/12 against the #2 team in the league record-wise and he should be looked at as a failure?

Comparing Paul and Kidd's team success is a JOKE. Kidd didn't even get past the 1st round for the first 7 years of his career until he went to the EAST. The competition they both faced isn't comparable at all, Kidd was facing sub 50 win teams in the east while Paul is facing championship contenders in the west. OKC or the '11 Lakers, '08 Spurs would SMOKE any of the teams Kidd faced in the east.

What a joke.

[DMAVS41]

I think there's a middle ground here. My philosophy most closely matches KBlaze's, but I can see what you are saying as well to an extent.

Personally, I do not prefer to judge individual players off of how far the teams they played for advanced in the playoffs. I find this to be a largely inaccurate way of judging one's skill because, well, it's a team sport. An individual can help a team perform better, but sometimes better may mean winning 48 games instead of 18, not just winning a championship or not (or advancing past a certain round).

As for what it means when we see Chris Paul lose possession of the rock in a "wait to be fouled" situation, I think it's a slippery slope. Would it make sense to definitively conclude that he struggles in end-of-game situations? When Kevin Durant misses a three point attempt from the left wing with four minutes remaining in the second quarter, do we quickly conclude or take into account that Kevin Durant may struggle to make shots from the wing during non-pressure situations?

I almost find all of this to be somewhat philosophical. I'm trying to picture... if one of my teammates was averaging 20ppg, 11apg, and 3spg, and he's someone who's been doing that for years, and he's perhaps the biggest reason we've advanced as far as we'd found ourselves and then one game he made a crucial mistake that contributed to a devastating loss, would I consider him less of a player? I do not believe so.

Furthermore, if that player played as well as he did and poured his heart into the game, only for us (his surrounding unit) to struggle a little, to the point of not being able to emerge victorious, would I find that teammate of mine any less skilled? Once again, I do not believe so.


A few things;

1. It's not about advancing. It's about how a player plays. In this case, it's clear the Clippers could have advanced if not for Paul wetting the bed in crucial situations.

2. I'm not going to conclude anything on 1 game or series or even 1 year. You are misunderstanding me. I'm saying everything should be factored in. And when a player plays like shit or comes up small in key moments in the playoffs...it matters. It doesn't matter so much that we have to completely swing back the other way, but it matters. And it shouldn't be shrugged off by "shit happens"...especially in real time. It's okay to shrug off "tragic magic" and "kobe's 04 finals" and "dirk's 07 series" because we can reflect back on careers in which they've proven shit and those things are what would be kind of considered anomalies. They still matter in my opinion, but the phrase "shit happens" is more apt for that because we can reflect on the whole body of work.

3. Actually doing something is different than having the ability to do something. Many players in history have had the talent and ability to take over games or series or make huge shots. There has to some type of reward in the data or evaluation of a player when said player actually does something rather than just possessing the ability to do something. Lebron's game 6 in 12 is a good example of this. We all knew he was capable of that, but on some level (even if it's not a big deal) we have to reward him for actually doing that. There has to be a difference. On the Kblaze approach, Lebron remains the same for him whether he goes 3 of 20 in that game and loses...or he dominates like he did. I find that horribly flawed...

4. This all started in the thread about current Durant being better than peak Kobe. I said that Durant's regular season was better, but I'd need to see how Durant does in the playoffs to conclude current Durant is better than peak Kobe. That started a shit storm about people saying you can evaluate without seeing the playoffs for a current year and careers. And I of course hugely disagree. And I feel pretty vindicated by wanting to wait because it's clear to me that current Durant is absolutely not better than peak Kobe. Similar? Sure, but Durant has clearly not done enough yet to warrant that. We just watched him go 11 of 43 in the two biggest games of the year. We saw him get locked own for multiple games by Allen/Barnes and literally "luck out" to still be alive now. Now, that doesn't mean Durant isn't still an all time great player, but I like to see how guys perform in the playoffs before reaching conclusions...especially about a peak vs peak. Also, that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore what Durant does here on in. He's been lucky to be alive still, but what he does with that luck matters. And if he dominates the rest of the way...I'll factor that in as well. It's really not hard....we should factor everything in. It's the best way to reach an accurate conclusion.

[PsychoBe]

So Paul is a failure because he's losing to teams better than his every year? He averages 22/12 against the #2 team in the league record-wise and he should be looked at as a failure?

Comparing Paul and Kidd's team success is a JOKE. Kidd didn't even get past the 1st round for the first 7 years of his career until he went to the EAST. The competition they both faced isn't comparable at all, Kidd was facing sub 50 win teams in the east while Paul is facing championship contenders in the west. OKC or the '11 Lakers, '08 Spurs would SMOKE any of the teams Kidd faced in the east.

What a joke.

no one said he's a failure. he's just not a proven winner.

he had no excuses this year. none. dude just wet the bed when it mattered the most.

[D.J.]

So Paul is a failure because he's losing to teams better than his every year? He averages 22/12 against the #2 team in the league record-wise and he should be looked at as a failure?


Hornets lost a home game 7 in '08. Clippers last year were one and done with home court and that was with winning the first two games. This year, take away that idiotic sequence and the Clippers are up 3-2. Being a top skilled PG in the league and not even making a WCF at least once is a failure. He's been in the league 9 years. Again, no one is knocking him for never winning a title. But there have been three solid chances to reach the WCF and it didn't happen once.



Comparing Paul and Kidd's team success is a JOKE. Kidd didn't even get past the 1st round for the first 7 years of his career until he went to the EAST. The competition they both faced isn't comparable at all, Kidd was facing sub 50 win teams in the east while Paul is facing championship contenders in the west. OKC or the '11 Lakers, '08 Spurs would SMOKE any of the teams Kidd faced in the east.

What a joke.


So now you want to give CP3 a pass for losing to good teams, but Kidd gets no credit because he was in the East? That's not how it works. You can't give one player a pass and refuse to give another player credit because he was playing in a conference where the level of talent was beyond his control.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Means nothing. They lost to a higher seeded team. It's not like he stunk it up and was the reason they lost anyways. Kobe never made it past round 1 in 06 or 07 but won a championship in '09 and '10. Was he honestly a better player in those years? Nope, he was clearly worse.

[Kblaze8855]

that speaks volumes, and as of right NOW, cp3 deserves every bit of criticism that comes his way.

First let me say....I like the "NOW" which makes it obvious you know that one day if he wins none of this even matters. Once you win you were always a winner...because this is all a big ****ing joke that makes no sense.

Second...hes getting no real lasting criticism from anyone but fans who would hate when he lost in the WCF anyway.

First game next season all will be as it was. BEt your life on it. Hes ranked #1 next year too. Lot of noise to no result.

[DMAVS41]

Means nothing. They lost to a higher seeded team. It's not like he stunk it up and was the reason they lost anyways. Kobe never made it past round 1 in 06 or 07 but won a championship in '09 and '10. Was he honestly a better player in those years? Nope, he was clearly worse.

It's not just about advancing. It's how you play.

Kobe deserves criticism for his game 7 in 06 regardless of the circumstances.

Just like Paul deserves criticism for his poor play late in these games...


You can't retreat to "help" here. Did you watch that series? The Clippers looked like the better team more of the series...come on now.

[DMAVS41]

First let me say....I like the "NOW" which makes it obvious you know that one day if he wins none of this even matters. Once you win you were always a winner...because this is all a big ****ing joke that makes no sense.

Second...hes getting no real lasting criticism from anyone but fans who would hate when he lost in the WCF anyway.

First game next season all will be as it was. BEt your life on it. Hes ranked #1 next year too. Lot of noise to no result.

Yes...it makes no sense to evaluate players on how they perform in the biggest games of the year in the playoffs.

Yep, lets just ignore it all because Kblaze knows exactly how good every single player is just by watching regular season games (a limited number mind you)...

:facepalm

[RoundMoundOfReb]

It's not just about advancing. It's how you play.

Kobe deserves criticism for his game 7 in 06 regardless of the circumstances.

Just like Paul deserves criticism for his poor play late in these games...


You can't retreat to "help" here. Did you watch that series? The Clippers looked like the better team more of the series...come on now.

Funny since i've seen you in other thread saying how ridiculously stacked OKC is.

[DMAVS41]

Funny since i've seen you in other thread saying how ridiculously stacked OKC is.

They are. So what?

Doesn't change the fact that the Clippers could have easily won that series.

Are you really disputing that?

[Rake2204]

A few things;

1. It's not about advancing. It's about how a player plays. In this case, it's clear the Clippers could have advanced if not for Paul wetting the bed in crucial situations.

2. I'm not going to conclude anything on 1 game or series or even 1 year. You are misunderstanding me. I'm saying everything should be factored in. And when a player plays like shit or comes up small in key moments in the playoffs...it matters. It doesn't matter so much that we have to completely swing back the other way, but it matters. And it shouldn't be shrugged off by "shit happens"...especially in real time. It's okay to shrug off "tragic magic" and "kobe's 04 finals" and "dirk's 07 series" because we can reflect back on careers in which they've proven shit and those things are what would be kind of considered anomalies. They still matter in my opinion, but the phrase "shit happens" is more apt for that because we can reflect on the whole body of work.

3. Actually doing something is different than having the ability to do something. Many players in history have had the talent and ability to take over games or series or make huge shots. There has to some type of reward in the data or evaluation of a player when said player actually does something rather than just possessing the ability to do something. Lebron's game 6 in 12 is a good example of this. We all knew he was capable of that, but on some level (even if it's not a big deal) we have to reward him for actually doing that. There has to be a difference. On the Kblaze approach, Lebron remains the same for him whether he goes 3 of 20 in that game and loses...or he dominates like he did. I find that horribly flawed...To glance at the other side of #1, Chris Paul made a singular mistake. It's a mistake I do not recall him making at any other point of his basketball career (though I suppose it could have at some other point). In end-of-game scenarios where he's supposed to hold onto the ball and wait to be fouled, I bet he has a 99% success rate.

Even still, we can acknowledge what happened at the end of game 5. It wasn't a great moment for Paul. You state the Clippers may have been able to advance ha Paul not committed a pair of late turnovers. From another point of view, do you believe it could be interpreted that Los Angeles only found themselves in the position they did in the first place because of Chris Paul's incredibly skilled contributions? So in a way, his turnovers may have cost his team a game they never would have been able to win if he hadn't done the innumerable amount of wonderful things prior, both throughout the series and regular season?

Chris Paul was outstanding this, and he turned in a tremendous post season by and large. As a player, that guy played. Yes, he made mistakes, but in the scheme of things, I suppose the question is how much should those plays define him in comparison to all the good he provides (which seems to outweigh his negatives 100:1)? We seem very comfortable factoring in Chris Paul's turnovers in game 5 at the moment. Are his excellent plays throughout the series being factored just as well?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

They are. So what?

Doesn't change the fact that the Clippers could have easily won that series.

Are you really disputing that?
I'm disputing the notion that the Clippers were expected to win the series not that they could have.

[DMAVS41]

To glance at the other side of #1, Chris Paul made a singular mistake. It's a mistake I do not recall him making at any other point of his basketball career (though I suppose it could have at some other point). In end-of-game scenarios where he's supposed to hold onto the ball and wait to be fouled, I bet he has a 99% success rate.

Even still, we can acknowledge what happened at the end of game 5. It wasn't a great moment for Paul. You state the Clippers may have been able to advance ha Paul not committed a pair of late turnovers. From another point of view, do you believe it could be interpreted that Los Angeles only found themselves in the position they did in the first place because of Chris Paul's incredibly skilled contributions? So in a way, his turnovers may have cost his team a game they never would have been able to win if he hadn't done the innumerable amount of wonderful things prior, both throughout the series and regular season?

Chris Paul was outstanding this, and he turned in a tremendous post season by and large. As a player, that guy played. Yes, he made mistakes, but in the scheme of things, I suppose the question is how much should those plays define him in comparison to all the good he provides (which seems to outweigh his negatives 100:1)? We seem very comfortable factoring in Chris Paul's turnovers in game 5 at the moment. Are his excellent plays throughout the series being factored just as well?


Of course his excellent plays are being factored in. It's why I have Paul as the best point guard in the league.

I will keep saying it. Everything factors in for me. I'm not one of those crazy guys claiming Paul sucks or that he can't be compared to anyone until he makes the finals or something.

All I'm saying is that you should factor in everything a player does...and I personally put more weight on the playoffs because I honestly don't care much about meaningless regular season games against a multitude of teams that have a very low "give a shit" meter going on a nightly basis.

Again, on some level, it matters what these guys actually do.

Lets try you on this one.

Lebron in game 6 in 2012.

If he had gone of 3 of 20 in that game compared to what he actually did. Would it change how you feel about Lebron as a player at all? I'm not saying a big change. I'm just asking if him coming up really small in that do or die game or him playing an all time great game matters at all to you...

[DMAVS41]

I'm disputing the notion that the Clippers were expected to win the series not that they could have.

I never said they were expected to win...and I'm hardly blaming Paul for the whole thing.

[Young X]

Hornets lost a home game 7 in '08. Clippers last year were one and done with home court and that was with winning the first two games. This year, take away that idiotic sequence and the Clippers are up 3-2. Being a top skilled PG in the league and not even making a WCF at least once is a failure. He's been in the league 9 years. Again, no one is knocking him for never winning a title. But there have been three solid chances to reach the WCF and it didn't happen once.I'm not saying he never had chances, but losing to teams just as good if not better every year is not a failure or underachieving especially when you play at or above your expected level which is what Paul did in that series.
So now you want to give CP3 a pass for losing to good teams, but Kidd gets no credit because he was in the East? That's not how it works. You can't give one player a pass and refuse to give another player credit because he was playing in a conference where the level of talent was beyond his control.It's called having perspective, you can't compare their situations when one player is playing much tougher teams than the other. Do you really think these Clipper teams couldn't get to the finals in that conference?

[MellowYellow]

Means nothing. They lost to a higher seeded team. It's not like he stunk it up and was the reason they lost anyways. Kobe never made it past round 1 in 06 or 07 but won a championship in '09 and '10. Was he honestly a better player in those years? Nope, he was clearly worse.

Paul lost them game 5, we should be having a game 7 on sunday. If he lost it in game 7 because KD and westbrook played great it would be different story

[Rake2204]

Lebron in game 6 in 2012.

If he had gone of 3 of 20 in that game compared to what he actually did. Would it change how you feel about Lebron as a player at all? I'm not saying a big change. I'm just asking if him coming up really small in that do or die game or him playing an all time great game matters at all to you...I understand the first portion of your post (that I did not include in my quote) and I can dig it. However, regarding the above question, you've put me in a tough position because if I answer truthfully, I have doubts that you'd believe me. Nonetheless, I shall proceed.

On the surface, I do not believe LeBron having a poor performance in game 6 in 2012 would have changed my perception of him as a player. Though in some respects, I suppose it would have depended upon why he went 3 of 20, how he went 3 of 20, and what else he was able to contribute that evening (it seems even when he struggles from the field, he's still often good for 10 boards and 8 assists).

But assuming he just had a bad game, flat out, it'd be something to ponder and consider, but I understand that every player, no matter how great, is going to have bad games here or there - sometimes in game 43 of the regular season, sometimes game 2 of the first round, sometimes game 6 of the conference finals. Even Michael Jordan once shot 9-26 in a potential championship-clinching contest in 1998.

The reason a hypothetically poor performance by James in 2012's game 6 would not have really changed my perception is because I already understood how great of a player he was. I thought his style of play was incredible the moment he came into the league and I loved the idea of a high-flying superstar coming along who took great pride and joy from distributing the basketball and making his teammates better (particularly during a guard era featuring prominent iso volume shooters).

I think James' 2007 performance against the Pistons affected me because I didn't know that he was capable of being that legendary, even at his best. Great performances have a better chance of affecting me than negative. Anyone can have a bad game sometimes. Not everyone can do what LeBron was doing from the moment he stepped into the league. And not everyone can score 29 of his team's last 30 points while completing a dazzling array of impossible shots.

Once the '07 game happened, it solidified the heights of LeBron's greatness to me. I already knew he was great, but he raised the bar a little bit. The fact that his team eventually lost and came up ring-less that year had little to no bearing on how great of a player I found LeBron James to be.

As a result, by 2012, I knew who he was. One game was not going to alter my opinion at that point.

[DMAVS41]

I understand the first portion of your post (that I did not include in my quote) and I can dig it. However, regarding the above question, you've put me in a tough position because if I answer truthfully, I have doubts that you'd believe me. Nonetheless, I shall proceed.

On the surface, I do not believe LeBron having a poor performance in game 6 in 2012 would have changed my perception of him as a player. Though in some respects, I suppose it would have depended upon why he went 3 of 20, how he went 3 of 20, and what else he was able to contribute that evening (it seems even when he struggles from the field, he's still often good for 10 boards and 8 assists).

But assuming he just had a bad game, flat out, it'd be something to ponder and consider, but I understand that every player, no matter how great, is going to have bad games here or there - sometimes in game 43 of the regular season, sometimes game 2 of the first round, sometimes game 6 of the conference finals. Even Michael Jordan once shot 9-26 in a potential championship-clinching contest in 1998.

The reason a hypothetically poor performance by James in 2012's game 6 would not have really changed my perception is because I already understood how great of a player he was. I thought his style of play was incredible the moment he came into the league and I loved the idea of a high-flying superstar coming along who took great pride and joy from distributing the basketball and making his teammates better (particularly during a guard era featuring prominent iso volume shooters).

I think James' 2007 performance against the Pistons affected me because I didn't know that he was capable of being that legendary, even at his best. Great performances have a better chance of affecting me than negative. Anyone can have a bad game sometimes. Not everyone can do what LeBron was doing from the moment he stepped into the league. And not everyone can score 29 of his team's last 30 points while completing a dazzling array of impossible shots.

Once the '07 game happened, it solidified the heights of LeBron's greatness to me. I already knew he was great, but he raised the bar a little bit. The fact that his team eventually lost and came up ring-less that year had little to no bearing on how great of a player I found LeBron James to be.

As a result, by 2012, I knew who he was. One game was not going to alter my opinion at that point.


How did you know who Lebron was though?

He failed in 07 in the finals, had some epically horrid shooting games in 08 in a 7 game series, played great in 09, went ghost in 10 in the pivotal game, and then had the worst finals ever in 11 for an all timer.

So you know Lebron going into that game...who he was?

You are right...I don't buy it...unless you think he's won the last two years on flukes or something and still have him very low.

Again though, I'm not in favor of drastically altering your opinion on a player off one game or one year or one series.

However, this notion that it doesn't matter how one plays is just hilarious to me. I really can't wrap my mind around it. Jordan wouldn't be Jordan if he played like shit in some 2 of the finals he played and won 4 rings. He'd be a lesser player. Even with the same skills and everything...he'd be missing "something" compared to the player he was in reality.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement;

Having the ability to do something is different than actually doing something.

[D.J.]

I'm not saying he never had chances, but losing to teams just as good if not better every year is not a failure or underachieving especially when you play at or above your expected level which is what Paul did in that series.It's called having perspective, you can't compare their situations when one player is playing much tougher teams than the other. Do you really think these Clipper teams couldn't get to the finals in that conference?


And you're giving one player a pass for losing while another gets to the Finals two years in a row and you refuse to give him credit; instead blaming his conference. That's not how it works. Like it or not, Kidd got to the Finals two years in a row and if not for that 5-6 minute collapse in the 4th, would've pushed the Spurs to 7 games.

[Lebron23]

Conference Finals Here We come. - Chris Paul

[TheMarkMadsen]

Conference Finals Here We come. - Chris Paul

lol