So KBlaze...this game didn't matter?

[DMAVS41]

:confusedshrug:

[navy]

If the Clippers dont win it all are people still gonna call CP3 a choker?

Yes.

[DMAVS41]

If the Clippers dont win it all are people still gonna call CP3 a choker?

Yes.


I don't care what people say. I'm not worried about perception.

I'm simply curious if he'll still keep saying that it doesn't matter how players play.

I wonder what CP3 would say to someone if they told him it didn't matter if he balled out like that and won...or played like garbage and lost in arguably the biggest games of his career.

[navy]

I don't care what people say. I'm not worried about perception.

I'm simply curious if he'll still keep saying that it doesn't matter how players play.
He said it wont change his perception and it wont. Kblaze has always thought CP3 was a great player and someone who continues to fight instead of laying down. Haters gonna hate no matter what happens.

This game didnt change that.

[RRR3]

CP3 would deserve just as much credit if the Spurs had hit a game winning three

But this was a legendary performance for sure

[DMAVS41]

He said it wont change his perception and it wont. Kblaze has always thought CP3 was a great player and someone who continues to fight instead of laying down. Haters gonna hate no matter what happens.

This game didnt change that.

You are missing the point.

We know Paul is a great player, but actually going out there and doing that matters.

You people all seem to think that me saying it "matters" is arguing for one game to completely change how we view players.

All I'm arguing is that it matters how players play. It mattered that Paul went out there and did that tonight...just like his entire series mattered.

Should 1 game or 1 series completely change the view of a player? Of course not, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

This was a career defining type game for Paul...and it matters that he played as great as he did.

Blaze recently said he didn't think Paul could ever win a title. So would it matter if he did? I mean...at some point he (and I guess you) have to admit you don't know exactly how good a player is until you see their career play out.

Do we know Paul is great? Yes...but we don't know exactly how great. Tonight was more evidence for us to figure out exactly how good at basketball Paul is.

[notatop29pg]

He said it wont change his perception and it wont. Kblaze has always thought CP3 was a great player and someone who continues to fight instead of laying down. Haters gonna hate no matter what happens.

This game didnt change that.

Wouldn't have changed mine if he missed either. Not in the slightest.

[notatop29pg]

You are missing the point.

We know Paul is a great player, but actually going out there and doing that matters.

You people all seem to think that me saying it "matters" is arguing for one game to completely change how we view players.

All I'm arguing is that it matters how players play. It mattered that Paul went out there and did that tonight...just like his entire series mattered.

Should 1 game or 1 series completely change the view of a player? Of course not, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

This was a career defining type game for Paul...and it matters that he played as great as he did.

Blaze recently said he didn't think Paul could ever win a title. So would it matter if he did? I mean...at some point he (and I guess you) have to admit you don't know exactly how good a player is until you see their career play out.

Do we know Paul is great? Yes...but we don't know exactly how great. Tonight was more evidence for us to figure out exactly how good at basketball Paul is.

Did he move up a few spots for you?

[DMAVS41]

Wouldn't have changed mine if he missed either. Not in the slightest.

Jesus guys. This isn't about changing your entire attitude.

It's about just ****ing admitting that it matters that Paul came out here and played this great.

I'd like to try another thought experiment, but last time it didn't go so well.

[nathanjizzle]

so does it matter when dirk consistently loses to the spurs? or is it because "his teammates"

[DMAVS41]

Did he move up a few spots for you?

Spots? Not even thinking like that.

I'm just saying it really matters how Paul played tonight and this series.

It's a reflection of how good at basketball he is.

I'll try the thought experiment again here:

Imagine there are two versions of CP3. Each version is exactly the same except for this 1 game tonight. Tell me which version you would take on your team...okay?

1. Paul plays the game he did tonight and Clippers win

2. Paul turns it over 5 times and goes 0-6 from the 3 point line and the Clippers lose


Their future will be identical as well. So the only difference between the two players is this 1 game. Which player do you draft knowing all information?

[AlphaWolf24]

Postseason doesn't matter.....

CP3 even said it after the game....Clips have the best training/medical staff "Tom and Lewis".... that's the main reason Clips won...

CP3 had little to do with winning or losin the games.....once again...

wining is mostly luck here and there .......lucky teammates......and lucky training staff

white text here

[notatop29pg]

Jesus guys. This isn't about changing your entire attitude.

It's about just ****ing admitting that it matters that Paul came out here and played this great.

I'd like to try another thought experiment, but last time it didn't go so well.

Of course it MATTERS, I mean if he plays bad they lose.

But does it matter to me? Nope.

A - I'm a Pelicans fan.
B - I've maybe missed 10 CP3 games in his career, a ring would be some nice icing for sure, but I understand its a team game, and some of the greatest players miss out. That's just life.

[notatop29pg]

Spots? Not even thinking like that.

I'm just saying it really matters how Paul played tonight and this series.

It's a reflection of how good at basketball he is.

I'll try the thought experiment again here:

Imagine there are two versions of CP3. Each version is exactly the same except for this 1 game tonight. Tell me which version you would take on your team...okay?

1. Paul plays the game he did tonight and Clippers win

2. Paul turns it over 5 times and goes 0-6 from the 3 point line and the Clippers lose


Their future will be identical as well. So the only difference between the two players is this 1 game. Which player do you draft knowing all information?

I'm not speaking for KBlaze, but as per my other post.

Of course it matters in a historical/achievement sense and if I knew the future I'd take CP3 version 2... but neither version changes MY THOUGHTS/FEELINGS about the player CP3 is.

[DMAVS41]

Of course it MATTERS, I mean if he plays bad they lose.

But does it matter to me? Nope.

A - I'm a Pelicans fan.
B - I've maybe missed 10 CP3 games in his career, a ring would be some nice icing for sure, but I understand its a team game, and some of the greatest players miss out. That's just life.

I'm talking about his play...not team success.

It's all connected to some extent, but sometimes a team isn't good enough.

So that isn't what I'm saying.

I'm arguing this idea floating around that how players play in the playoffs isn't a reflection of how good at basketball they are.

Paul played a truly great game tonight...and he'd be a lesser player if he played a worse game. How much lesser of a player? Open for debate.

But it absolutely matters that he did what he did tonight...

[DMAVS41]

I'm not speaking for KBlaze, but as per my other post.

Of course it matters in a historical/achievement sense and if I knew the future I'd take CP3 version 2... but neither version changes MY THOUGHTS/FEELINGS about the player CP3 is.

I'm not asking about thoughts/feelings in a broad sense.

I'm just curious if how players play matters to you.

And why the **** would you take version 2 over version 1?

[Young X]

What matters is the win. If the Spurs make a last second 3 to win it he would've been called a choker.

At this point of his career, his level of play isn't a big factor in his place in history. Most people already know how good he is. When people criticize him, I never hear them actually talk about the way he plays the game, the only thing they bring up is winning. Accumulating playoff wins is the only thing left for him.

[DMAVS41]

What matters is the win. If the Spurs make a last second 3 to win it he would've been called a choker.

At this point of his career, his level of play isn't a big factor in his place in history. Most people already know how good he is. When people criticize him, I never hear them actually talk about the way he plays the game, the only thing they bring up is winning. Accumulating playoff wins is the only thing left for him.

How one plays in crucial situations and in big games in the playoffs...

IS PART OF HOW GOOD AT BASKETBALL YOU ARE

Again...this isn't perception based. I don't care what some moron would say if somehow the Spurs hit a 3 at the buzzer.

I'm talking about how Paul played tonight in a huge game in a tough spot. It matters to me how players play.

Again, I'm not saying we should change our opinions completely from game to game. That isn't what I'm arguing for.

I'm simply arguing that it matters that Paul was great tonight vs if he had been terrible.

I'm still waiting for answers to my thought experiment. If you all pick player 1...that proves my point.

If you pick player 2...you are going to have to explain it.

[Prometheus]

I find it pretty weird that there is any confusion about OP's point. It seems pretty cut and dry. How basketball players play in big games is part of what defines them as players.

[DMAVS41]

I find it pretty weird that there is any confusion about OP's point. It seems pretty cut and dry. How basketball players play in big games is part of what defines them as players.

Not only defines, but it's a reflection of how good they are.

The difference between Paul playing great here and playing terrible might be only something like a 1% difference or something...but it matters.

How much it matters that Paul played great tonight given the circumstances is what should be debated.

The debate should not be whether or not it matters how Paul played in one of the biggest games of his career.

I'm still waiting people to answer the thought experiment question. I think that clearly proves my point.

[Smoke117]

Not only defines, but it's a reflection of how good they are.

The difference between Paul playing great here and playing terrible might be only something like a 1% difference or something...but it matters.

How much it matters that Paul played great tonight given the circumstances is what should be debated.

The debate should not be whether or not it matters how Paul played in one of the biggest games of his career.

I'm still waiting people to answer the thought experiment question. I think that clearly proves my point.

When exactly did you grow an aversion to paragraphs?

[gts]

:lol Relax it's the first round... Getting out of the first round if you want to be considered an all time great shouldn't be seen as a major accomplishment in your career...


unless you're in your first or second season

[Darius]

:lol Relax it's the first round... Getting out of the first round if you want to be considered an all time great shouldn't be seen as a major accomplishment in your career...


unless you're in your first or second season

Surprised to see such trash posting from a long time poster like you. Relax bro, Lakers haven't been contracted.

A great series is a great series. If you didn't see a transcendent performance from a player this series then I feel bad you were unable to appreciate it.

And the "first round" thing? That's some Jabbar/pauk/whichever idiot level semantics. From Popovich to Zach Lowe - everyone recognizes this was no normal first round series.

[DMAVS41]

:lol Relax it's the first round... Getting out of the first round if you want to be considered an all time great shouldn't be seen as a major accomplishment in your career...


unless you're in your first or second season

That game last night was legendary for Paul. If you can't see or admit that...you don't know basketball or NBA history.

It was a truly great game by an all time great player.

And it matters...

First round? LOL...this isn't the EAST bro.

[warriorfan]

cp3 was faking it

[SpecialQue]

:lol Relax it's the first round... Getting out of the first round if you want to be considered an all time great shouldn't be seen as a major accomplishment in your career...


unless you're in your first or second season

This is embarrassing.

[Kblaze8855]

You notice that I didnt turn up and go all "What say you now bitches?!" or make a big deal out of it right? You noticed that I didnt make a big deal out of when he missed the big shot early in the series? You notice that in all your time here....my favorite players or most hated...I dont show up acting an ass gloating about being right because of a single series, or play, or shot or anyone being proven wrong by the same?

Take note of that...and decide if asking me this question is really needed.

Chris Paul is one of my favorite players...but if he wins the next 7 titles he isnt better than Magic. If he never wins another playoff series...he wont in retrospect be worse than Mark Price or anyone I think he beats out now. Im not gonna sit and rebuild my PG rankings and shift Dave Bing over here and Frazier over there...maybe drop Terry Porter and slide Jason Kidd up here....after a series. Or a playoffs.

Hes 30. He will never get better(I suppose its possible in some areas...shooting for one...but on the whole hes not improving much). These games...these moments...determine legacy. The terribly overused and poorly defined thing 22 year olds on the internet cant stop talking about because its so easy to count up how many ____ a guy won or times he led the league in ____ and reach a conclusion.

Its easy to say "Well....if Lebron wins another ring thats 3 rings, 4 MVPs, and 11 all nba teams...he has to go over Bird" its difficult to have a reasonable discussion on who plays basketball better.

So we play these games...we assign value to this and that...and these arguments never end.

I do not much care about legacy talk.

I care about basketball playing ability. No doubt you will come and tell me "But it matters how people plaaaaaaaaaaay" as if anyone could honestly interpret my position to mean it literally doesnt matter...I will read it and wonder how many times im going to have to explain it before it sinks in....and then probably not bother doing it again and just watch the game.

People are gonna hate. Hate isnt rational...its emotional. The emotion makes people stupid. These stupid people are going to take nothing from last nights win if the Clippers dont win in the second round...and probably the WCF. It doesnt matter if the Spurs are better than a lot of teams that guys played in the finals. Stupid people and legacy addicts cling to the easily quantifiable.

The round ____ lost. Shooting percentages. Single plays going well or not.

I care only as far as "legacy" talk....which I dont care much about to begin with.

It matters for that. It doesnt matter much to me....because the more I interact with "legacy" fans the less I think of them. Not because legacy talk isnt a worthwhile subject....but because the people obsessed with it cant see the trees for the forest. They try to talk on too grand a scale and ignore or are ignorant to the many small things that make a forest what it is.

If we cant agree...we cant agree. I dont need to talk about it after every game.

Im never gonna show up and act an ass because someone I support plays well. Im never gonna come in and say "Oh...maybe hes not that good" after they dont. I'll evaluate the circumstances and keep it moving.

If you feel a need to keep putting things I didnt say in quotation marks, telling people I said things I didnt(I said I didnt think Paul would win....not that he couldnt...ive often said any star can lead a title run on a deep enough team), or calling me out for...in this case...supporting someone who played well and won? Or wondering if since I like the guy im gonna come in on some "Oh...this? Yea this was huge...." shit like what I think no longer applies when the situation is in my favor.....fine.

You do that. But you have to know im not gonna keep indulging it. At some point I have to just stop responding. How many times do you want to have this discussion?

I decide over a period of years how good I think you are. Then...it doesnt much change unless the player does. They may have ups...downs. Whatever. You choosing to twist that into me claiming to see the future....go right ahead. I cant keep explaining it forever.

[VengefulAngel]

You notice that I didnt turn up and go all "What say you now bitches?!" or make a big deal out of it right? You noticed that I didnt make a big deal out of when he missed the big shot early in the series? You notice that in all your time here....my favorite players or most hated...I dont show up acting an ass gloating about being right because of a single series, or play, or shot or anyone being proven wrong by the same?

Take note of that...and decide if asking me this question is really needed.

Chris Paul is one of my favorite players...but if he wins the next 7 titles he isnt better than Magic. If he never wins another playoff series...he wont in retrospect be worse than Mark Price or anyone I think he beats out now. Im not gonna sit and rebuild my PG rankings and shift Dave Bing over here and Frazier over there...maybe drop Terry Porter and slide Jason Kidd up here....after a series. Or a playoffs.

Hes 30. He will never get better(I suppose its possible in some areas...shooting for one...but on the whole hes not improving much). These games...these moments...determine legacy. The terribly overused and poorly defined thing 22 year olds on the internet cant stop talking about because its so easy to count up how many ____ a guy won or times he led the league in ____ and reach a conclusion.

Its easy to say "Well....if Lebron wins another ring thats 3 rings, 4 MVPs, and 11 all nba teams...he has to go over Bird" its difficult to have a reasonable discussion on who plays basketball better.

So we play these games...we assign value to this and that...and these arguments never end.

I do not much care about legacy talk.

I care about basketball playing ability. No doubt you will come and tell me "But it matters how people plaaaaaaaaaaay" as if anyone could honestly interpret my position to mean it literally doesnt matter...I will read it and wonder how many times im going to have to explain it before it sinks in....and then probably not bother doing it again and just watch the game.

People are gonna hate. Hate isnt rational...its emotional. The emotion makes people stupid. These stupid people are going to take nothing from last nights win if the Clippers dont win in the second round...and probably the WCF. It doesnt matter if the Spurs are better than a lot of teams that guys played in the finals. Stupid people and legacy addicts cling to the easily quantifiable.

The round ____ lost. Shooting percentages. Single plays going well or not.

I care only as far as "legacy" talk....which I dont care much about to begin with.

It matters for that. It doesnt matter much to me....because the more I interact with "legacy" fans the less I think of them. Not because legacy talk isnt a worthwhile subject....but because the people obsessed with it cant see the trees for the forest. They try to talk on too grand a scale and ignore or are ignorant to the many small things that make a forest what it is.

If we cant agree...we cant agree. I dont need to talk about it after every game.

Im never gonna show up and act an ass because someone I support plays well. Im never gonna come in and say "Oh...maybe hes not that good" after they dont. I'll evaluate the circumstances and keep it moving.

If you feel a need to keep putting things I didnt say in quotation marks, telling people I said things I didnt(I said I didnt think Paul would win....not that he couldnt...ive often said any star can lead a title run on a deep enough team), or calling me out for...in this case...supporting someone who played well and won? Or wondering if since I like the guy im gonna come in on some "Oh...this? Yea this was huge...." shit like what I think no longer applies when the situation is in my favor.....fine.

You do that. But you have to know im not gonna keep indulging it. At some point I have to just stop responding. How many times do you want to have this discussion?

I decide over a period of years how good I think you are. Then...it doesnt much change unless the player does. They may have ups...downs. Whatever. You choosing to twist that into me claiming to see the future....go right ahead. I cant keep explaining it forever.

You were better off not responding, don't go all Pauk on him.

[sportjames23]

You notice that I didnt turn up and go all "What say you now bitches?!" or make a big deal out of it right? You noticed that I didnt make a big deal out of when he missed the big shot early in the series? You notice that in all your time here....my favorite players or most hated...I dont show up acting an ass gloating about being right because of a single series, or play, or shot or anyone being proven wrong by the same?

Take note of that...and decide if asking me this question is really needed.

Chris Paul is one of my favorite players...but if he wins the next 7 titles he isnt better than Magic. If he never wins another playoff series...he wont in retrospect be worse than Mark Price or anyone I think he beats out now. Im not gonna sit and rebuild my PG rankings and shift Dave Bing over here and Frazier over there...maybe drop Terry Porter and slide Jason Kidd up here....after a series. Or a playoffs.

Hes 30. He will never get better(I suppose its possible in some areas...shooting for one...but on the whole hes not improving much). These games...these moments...determine legacy. The terribly overused and poorly defined thing 22 year olds on the internet cant stop talking about because its so easy to count up how many ____ a guy won or times he led the league in ____ and reach a conclusion.

Its easy to say "Well....if Lebron wins another ring thats 3 rings, 4 MVPs, and 11 all nba teams...he has to go over Bird" its difficult to have a reasonable discussion on who plays basketball better.

So we play these games...we assign value to this and that...and these arguments never end.

I do not much care about legacy talk.

I care about basketball playing ability. No doubt you will come and tell me "But it matters how people plaaaaaaaaaaay" as if anyone could honestly interpret my position to mean it literally doesnt matter...I will read it and wonder how many times im going to have to explain it before it sinks in....and then probably not bother doing it again and just watch the game.

People are gonna hate. Hate isnt rational...its emotional. The emotion makes people stupid. These stupid people are going to take nothing from last nights win if the Clippers dont win in the second round...and probably the WCF. It doesnt matter if the Spurs are better than a lot of teams that guys played in the finals. Stupid people and legacy addicts cling to the easily quantifiable.

The round ____ lost. Shooting percentages. Single plays going well or not.

I care only as far as "legacy" talk....which I dont care much about to begin with.

It matters for that. It doesnt matter much to me....because the more I interact with "legacy" fans the less I think of them. Not because legacy talk isnt a worthwhile subject....but because the people obsessed with it cant see the trees for the forest. They try to talk on too grand a scale and ignore or are ignorant to the many small things that make a forest what it is.

If we cant agree...we cant agree. I dont need to talk about it after every game.

Im never gonna show up and act an ass because someone I support plays well. Im never gonna come in and say "Oh...maybe hes not that good" after they dont. I'll evaluate the circumstances and keep it moving.

If you feel a need to keep putting things I didnt say in quotation marks, telling people I said things I didnt(I said I didnt think Paul would win....not that he couldnt...ive often said any star can lead a title run on a deep enough team), or calling me out for...in this case...supporting someone who played well and won? Or wondering if since I like the guy im gonna come in on some "Oh...this? Yea this was huge...." shit like what I think no longer applies when the situation is in my favor.....fine.

You do that. But you have to know im not gonna keep indulging it. At some point I have to just stop responding. How many times do you want to have this discussion?

I decide over a period of years how good I think you are. Then...it doesnt much change unless the player does. They may have ups...downs. Whatever. You choosing to twist that into me claiming to see the future....go right ahead. I cant keep explaining it forever.


Kblaze come out swinging! :banana:

[TheMarkMadsen]

You notice that I didnt turn up and go all "What say you now bitches?!" or make a big deal out of it right? You noticed that I didnt make a big deal out of when he missed the big shot early in the series? You notice that in all your time here....my favorite players or most hated...I dont show up acting an ass gloating about being right because of a single series, or play, or shot or anyone being proven wrong by the same?

Take note of that...and decide if asking me this question is really needed.

Chris Paul is one of my favorite players...but if he wins the next 7 titles he isnt better than Magic.

If Chris Paul was able to actually do this and it would mean he was playing at a higher level than anybody has ever seen, it would speak volumes about his ability and skill set he possessed which allowed him to accomplish it

[Kblaze8855]

Unless at some point he played better than anyone ever played...winning ___ in a row doesnt mean hes on a higher level. It means he hit a high level and stayed there for a long time. And in such an unlikely situation...it would probably mean 5-10 timely injuries to other teams, a hell of a lot of lucky bounces, and teammates stepping up at just the right time.

You cant indvidually be good enough to make something like that happen.

[DMAVS41]

You notice that I didnt turn up and go all "What say you now bitches?!" or make a big deal out of it right? You noticed that I didnt make a big deal out of when he missed the big shot early in the series? You notice that in all your time here....my favorite players or most hated...I dont show up acting an ass gloating about being right because of a single series, or play, or shot or anyone being proven wrong by the same?

Take note of that...and decide if asking me this question is really needed.

Chris Paul is one of my favorite players...but if he wins the next 7 titles he isnt better than Magic. If he never wins another playoff series...he wont in retrospect be worse than Mark Price or anyone I think he beats out now. Im not gonna sit and rebuild my PG rankings and shift Dave Bing over here and Frazier over there...maybe drop Terry Porter and slide Jason Kidd up here....after a series. Or a playoffs.

Hes 30. He will never get better(I suppose its possible in some areas...shooting for one...but on the whole hes not improving much). These games...these moments...determine legacy. The terribly overused and poorly defined thing 22 year olds on the internet cant stop talking about because its so easy to count up how many ____ a guy won or times he led the league in ____ and reach a conclusion.

Its easy to say "Well....if Lebron wins another ring thats 3 rings, 4 MVPs, and 11 all nba teams...he has to go over Bird" its difficult to have a reasonable discussion on who plays basketball better.

So we play these games...we assign value to this and that...and these arguments never end.

I do not much care about legacy talk.

I care about basketball playing ability. No doubt you will come and tell me "But it matters how people plaaaaaaaaaaay" as if anyone could honestly interpret my position to mean it literally doesnt matter...I will read it and wonder how many times im going to have to explain it before it sinks in....and then probably not bother doing it again and just watch the game.

People are gonna hate. Hate isnt rational...its emotional. The emotion makes people stupid. These stupid people are going to take nothing from last nights win if the Clippers dont win in the second round...and probably the WCF. It doesnt matter if the Spurs are better than a lot of teams that guys played in the finals. Stupid people and legacy addicts cling to the easily quantifiable.

The round ____ lost. Shooting percentages. Single plays going well or not.

I care only as far as "legacy" talk....which I dont care much about to begin with.

It matters for that. It doesnt matter much to me....because the more I interact with "legacy" fans the less I think of them. Not because legacy talk isnt a worthwhile subject....but because the people obsessed with it cant see the trees for the forest. They try to talk on too grand a scale and ignore or are ignorant to the many small things that make a forest what it is.

If we cant agree...we cant agree. I dont need to talk about it after every game.

Im never gonna show up and act an ass because someone I support plays well. Im never gonna come in and say "Oh...maybe hes not that good" after they dont. I'll evaluate the circumstances and keep it moving.

If you feel a need to keep putting things I didnt say in quotation marks, telling people I said things I didnt(I said I didnt think Paul would win....not that he couldnt...ive often said any star can lead a title run on a deep enough team), or calling me out for...in this case...supporting someone who played well and won? Or wondering if since I like the guy im gonna come in on some "Oh...this? Yea this was huge...." shit like what I think no longer applies when the situation is in my favor.....fine.

You do that. But you have to know im not gonna keep indulging it. At some point I have to just stop responding. How many times do you want to have this discussion?

I decide over a period of years how good I think you are. Then...it doesnt much change unless the player does. They may have ups...downs. Whatever. You choosing to twist that into me claiming to see the future....go right ahead. I cant keep explaining it forever.


A simple question. No need for a big response.

Did it matter that Paul played great last night?

I'll make it even simpler...

Did it matter at all if Paul played great or he played terrible last night? Please answer simply.

[Kblaze8855]

Dont ask me for simple answers. Ask me for the truth(as I see it) or leave me be. I will explain it as clearly as I can. What I will not do is be told how to answer. Accept my answer or ask someone else a question.

Things as simple as yes or no dont spark discussions about them to begin with.

Something mattering or not is relative like all other things. It matters for some issues...it doesnt for others. Specify and get an answer. Eventually.

What exactly you win matters to "legacy" or the even more abstract "greatness".

But how good you are isnt determined by any single week....or night...or quarter...or shot.

Thats about as simply as I can put it. Agree or dont....im sure you understand what I mean.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Dont ask me for simple answers. Ask me for the truth(as I see it) or leave me be. I will explain it as clearly as I can. What I will not do is be told how to answer. Accept my answer or ask someone else a question.

Things as simple as yes or no dont spark discussions about them to begin with.

Something mattering or not is relative like all other things. It matters for some issues...it doesnt for others. Specify and get an answer. Eventually.
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/comicsalliance.com/files/2012/03/tumblrm0beomkppg1r5ur0ho1500.gif

[Kblaze8855]

I didnt notice the ship in the background for a while.

[ArbitraryWater]

Unless at some point he played better than anyone ever played...winning ___ in a row doesnt mean hes on a higher level. It means he hit a high level and stayed there for a long time. And in such an unlikely situation...it would probably mean 5-10 timely injuries to other teams, a hell of a lot of lucky bounces, and teammates stepping up at just the right time.

You cant indvidually be good enough to make something like that happen.

yeah, like that wouldnt captivate him over the Fraziers, Paytons, and Kidd's all-time... please.

[Im Still Ballin]

kblaze can you send me your email I want to chat

[AirFederer]

Chris Paul is one of my favorite players...but if he wins the next 7 titles he isnt better than Magic. If he never wins another playoff series...he wont in retrospect be worse than Mark Price or anyone I think he beats out now. Im not gonna sit and rebuild my PG rankings and shift Dave Bing over here and Frazier over there...maybe drop Terry Porter and slide Jason Kidd up here....after a series. Or a playoffs.

Hes 30. He will never get better...

What the hell did I just read? So if how he plays gives awesome results and titles, he will still not be improved in your eyes and his ranking will not be affected?

Then why play games at all?

[DMAVS41]

Dont ask me for simple answers. Ask me for the truth(as I see it) or leave me be. I will explain it as clearly as I can. What I will not do is be told how to answer. Accept my answer or ask someone else a question.

Things as simple as yes or no dont spark discussions about them to begin with.

Something mattering or not is relative like all other things. It matters for some issues...it doesnt for others. Specify and get an answer. Eventually.

What exactly you win matters to "legacy" or the even more abstract "greatness".

But how good you are isnt determined by any single week....or night...or quarter...or shot.

Thats about as simply as I can put it. Agree or dont....im sure you understand what I mean.

Nearly everything you say is a straw man of my position that has clearly been spelled out.

I will try once more. I'm not arguing for anyone drastically changing their opinion based on one play, one game, one series, or one year.

I'm simply asking if it matters if a player plays great in a big situation/game or plays poorly.

I'll try the hypothetical question one more time.

You have two players that are identical in all ways except for 1 game. Let's pretend that player is CP3 and there are 2 identical versions of him except for the game last night. You are the GM of a team and you know exactly how their careers will play out.

Again...they are identical outside of the game 7 from last night.

Version 1:

The CP3 from last night. Plays great, fights through the injury, and makes the game winning shot and Clippers advance.


Version 2:

CP3 version that turns it over 6 times and shoots 0-6 from the 3 point line and the Clippers lose by 10.

Which version would you draft? Again, their past and future outside of this 1 game is the same.

Could you please tell me which version you would draft?

[DMAVS41]

What the hell did I just read? So if how he plays gives awesome results and titles, he will still not be improved in your eyes and his ranking will not be affected?

Then why play games at all?

Good question.:confusedshrug:

[ArbitraryWater]

Kblaze would have Paul with 7 Titles and lets say 4-5 FMVP's, still around top 40... lol.. didn't get any better.

[Im Still Ballin]

Kblaze writing that;
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/le-miiverse-resource/images/5/56/Retarded-batman-p-o.gif

[Kblaze8855]

Did I say Kidd/payton/Frazier or did I say Magic?

And if the Clippers win rings till....2021...Paul is 37-38 by the end. Am I to assume hes better at basketball at 38 than he was in 2008? By the way.....I said this in 2007:



Why do people get so offended at the idea current players can be the equal of retired players with greater legacies?

Im as big a fan of the 80s and 90s as anyone but im gonna say it....

Karl Malone in MVP season form.....right now...is not a top 3 PF in the league. He was not better than Duncan, KG, or Dirk. A bunch of people would be annoyed to hear it....and I admit it sounds odd but....Karl Malone has a better case to be the #1 PF of all time than he does to be better than any PF has been the last 8 years. I'll explain that if needed but ill move on for now...

Greatness....ability. Not the same.

George Mikan was greater than Wilt as a rookie. Doesnt mean he was better at basketball.

Greatness often increases as ability decreases. Hard to avoid when one is stacking accomplishments and totals as one ages.

Career gets better. Game gets worse.

Happens all the time. Lebron will get "greater" with every ASG, all nba team, award and so on.

If he ever gets better than he was 2009-2014....ill be shocked.

The two just arent the same.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I think the point blaze is trying to make that is being missed is that if Paul's level of play doesn't improve he's not going to view him as being any better regardless of what he wins.

In order to get 7 rings without improving he'd have to get traded to the Thunder for nothing or something like that so a lot of you are having a hard time wrapping your heads around that statement so let's put it like this: Rings don't necessarily mean an individual player is greater than the next man. It's like old Robert Horry example. Do guys like Horry and Kerr belong in the Hall of Fame? So taking it up to the all-time greats, if Paul gets seven rings without actually improving does that mean he was a better player than Magic?

[AirFederer]

Lol so him making game winners and 7 rings would not be enough?

[Kblaze8855]

Clarify...

I know how their careers will turn out up to the point last night is played? I understand what you meant there?

Their careers till last night...identical...and they have the same accomplishments aside from it?

Does that force me to assume they lose next round?

Am I thinking too far into that?

Im gonna assume the following...

Identical players.

I know they will have identical careers one game aside...

But I pretend I dont know that the identical careers mean Paul has to lose now....

That wouldnt be drafting a player. Thats drafting a known future with one more win in it than otherwise.

So you choose the extra win.

But it doesnt change the fact that the players in question are identical.

[Kblaze8855]

I think the point blaze is trying to make that is being missed is that if Paul's level of play doesn't improve he's not going to view him as being any better regardless of what he wins.

In order to get 7 rings without improving he'd have to get traded to the Thunder for nothing or something like that so a lot of you are having a hard time wrapping your heads around that statement

Exactly. I was fairly sure it was a simple concept.

If he got better from now till 40...sure id say hes better. But the only way for him to win 7 rings is a crazy string of unlikely circumstances...which wouldnt make him better.

That shouldnt need explaining.

You dont win 7 rings off any individual players talent.

Not even Bill Russell is 100% responsible for all those rings...and he invented victory.

[ArbitraryWater]

But your whole psychology is it doesnt matter how they perform or what they achieve... so he does indeed get better, then? But not good enough for Magic?

Why compare him against Magic? And if he wins 7 titles, doing stuff no one else did, why doesn't he have a case? That would be an amazing thing to do.

Greatness is correlated with how good you are.... if Paul would be this good in the next 7 years, that counts. That would be an amazing prime, quality wise and length wis.e

[Im Still Ballin]

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-41349-jonah-hill-oscars-cut-it-out-g-w5Tc.gif

[TheMarkMadsen]

But your whole psychology is it doesnt matter how they perform or what they achieve... so he does indeed get better, then? But not good enough for Magic?

Why compare him against Magic? And if he wins 7 titles, doing stuff no one else did, why doesn't he have a case? That would be an amazing thing to do.

Greatness is correlated with how good you are.... if Paul would be this good in the next 7 years, that counts. That would be an amazing prime, quality wise and length wis.e

exactly this, if Paul was to lead his team to 7 straight championships he's going to have to show a level of consistency that we've never seen from anybody ever

and being able to produce great performances that consistently would surely be an improvement he made as a player

:confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

[Kblaze8855]

Lol so him making game winners and 7 rings would not be enough?

To be better than Magic? No.

That ship has sailed. There are physical advantages outside of Pauls control...but its a physical sport. being big helps.

Magic is too unique. Magic is out of the reach of everyone ive ever seen play the position.

I wont say he destroys Oscar...but nobody in the last 30 years touches him.

Doesnt mean he cant lose(He lost more than he won). But it means I wouldnt consider anyone else.

Magic was a monster.

[DMAVS41]

Clarify...

I know how their careers will turn out up to the point last night is played? I understand what you meant there?

Their careers till last night...identical...and they have the same accomplishments aside from it?

Does that force me to assume they lose next round?

Am I thinking too far into that?

Im gonna assume the following...

Identical players.

I know they will have identical careers one game aside...

But I pretend I dont know that the identical careers mean Paul has to lose now....

That wouldnt be drafting a player. Thats drafting a known future with one more win in it than otherwise.

So you choose the extra win.

But it doesnt change the fact that the players in question are identical.


They are identical outside of that 1 game.

The point is to show that it matters, on some level, how players play.

It's just a thought experiment.

Now imagine you have two very similar players in terms of skill set and really the only thing separating them is 100 big moments, games, shots...etc. in the playoffs.

First guy succeeds in 80 of the 100.

2nd guys succeeds in 30 of the 100.

I think the guy that succeeds in the 80 is a better player all else equal because it's a reflection of how good he is at basketball.

This is where we have our disagreement. I think how a player reacts to certain situations, especially in the playoffs, is part of being good at basketball.

You clearly say you don't...but I think deep down you do care. Because we all know you'd take the guy that comes through more in the playoffs vs the guy that doesn't...even if they were identical outside of those moments.

Which is why how players play matters.

If Paul had played like shit last night...he'd be a lesser player because his performance last night was a reflection of how good at basketball he was/is.

Now, might only be a .01% difference something...I'm not arguing that it's a big swing.

I'm simply saying it matters.

And with these all time great players like Paul. How they perform in the 50 or so biggest moments, games, series...etc. of their careers adds up to something meaningful in how good they are...or at least I would argue that.

Like I always say...it matters that Lebron was great in game 6 in 12 against the Celtics vs playing terrible. Does it define his career? Of course not, but it mattered.

[Im Still Ballin]

Is kblaze joking or is he being serious with this reasoning? I honestly can't tell

[Kblaze8855]

Of course id take the guy more likely to perform well under pressure....but I cant combine that with them being identical in the first place. Something causes the massive difference in performance. I suspect it isnt black magic.

There is no "Identical except one always comes through". If one has the ability to continue coming through they arent identical to begin with.

[DMAVS41]

To be better than Magic? No.

That ship has sailed. There are physical advantages outside of Pauls control...but its a physical sport. being big helps.

Magic is too unique. Magic is out of the reach of everyone ive ever seen play the position.

I wont say he destroys Oscar...but nobody in the last 30 years touches him.

Doesnt mean he cant lose(He lost more than he won). But it means I wouldnt consider anyone else.

Magic was a monster.


If CP3 averages something like 23/11/4 on 60% TS over the next 7 playoffs and leads his team to 7 straight titles...

It will be a reflection of how good at basketball he is.

Whether that makes him as good or better than Magic is kind of irrelevant.

It would make Paul a better player than you currently view him as...because there is no way you think Paul could do that...

This is why your way of thinking is not correct. It discounts how these guys actually play.

You have to just admit you don't know exactly how good players are.

You said you didn't come on here and gloat...

Why would you?

If Paul had played like shit...you have said...no big deal...just one game.

So why would you gloat? Doesn't even make sense to say what you did.

[DMAVS41]

Of course id take the guy more likely to perform well under pressure....but I cant combine that with them being identical in the first place. Something causes the massive difference in performance. I suspect it isnt black magic.

There is no "Identical except one always comes through". If one has the ability to continue coming through they arent identical to begin with.

It's a thought experiment. They are identical outside of those moments. So no, they aren't identical in performance, but they are identical in all ways outside of those specific moments. You see? You always say...oh just one game. Doesn't matter. Oh...just one series...doesn't matter.

But of course it does matter. Might not matter a ton, but it does matter. As you just admitted you'd take the guy that plays better under the pressure in the playoffs.

And that's all I needed.

You clearly care, deep down, how these players play in the playoffs...


Anyone can come on here and say nothing surprises them. But we aren't discussing in broad terms the greatness of Paul. We know he's awesome and great. The question is how great. And not great in terms of legacy. Great in terms of playing the game. And games like last night are a reflection of how good a player is.

It's all one big giant formula.

And all I've ever argued is that it all matters. How much certain things matter...I tend to think we are on the same page on. We just can't find common ground, although your admission above might have changed that...on whether or not it matters at all.

[Kblaze8855]

The fact that he did it wouldnt make him better.....if he did it...he would have to improve. The improvment would make him better. Are we really playing this game of chicken or the egg right now?

You dont get better because you play better. You play better....because you get better. And there comes a point that is no longer likely. Usually...about 30ish. There are exceptions. Some who dont need their athletic ability so much...

Its possible. It just isnt normal.

[Kblaze8855]

It's a thought experiment. They are identical outside of those moments. So no, they aren't identical in performance, but they are identical in all ways outside of those specific moments. You see? You always say...oh just one game. Doesn't matter. Oh...just one series...doesn't matter.

But of course it does matter. Might not matter a ton, but it does matter. As you just admitted you'd take the guy that plays better under the pressure in the playoffs.

And that's all I needed.

You clearly care, deep down, how these players play in the playoffs...


Being identical other than how they play sometimes....is not identical.

If one plays better....hes better.

Now...if he played better once...**** it. Could be any reason.

If he plays better all the time under pressure something caused it. And it isnt pixie dust. Its basketball.

Thats why I cant really see them as identical to begin with. "Identical other than..." isnt identical. The "Other than" removes the identical.

[DMAVS41]

The fact that he did it wouldnt make him better.....if he did it...he would have to improve. The improvment would make him better. Are we really playing this game of chicken or the egg right now?

You dont get better because you play better. You play better....because you get better. And there comes a point that is no longer likely. Usually...about 30ish. There are exceptions. Some who dont need their athletic ability so much...

Its possible. It just isnt normal.

Playing better is a reflection of how good at basketball you are. We agree there, but again...you don't know the future.

The best way to judge how good a player is...is to watch how he performs in a variety of circumstances and situations.

You are the one putting the cart before the horse. You think you can learn a lot about a golfer from watching him hit balls on the driving range. Not sure if you play golf, but any golfer knows that not to be the case.

If CP3 is able to lead a team to 7 straight titles...you, and all of us, have missed something in how good at basketball he is. It's as simple as that. There is no ****ing way you could look someone in the face and tell them that playing great while leading a team to 7 straight titles isn't a reflection of their basketball playing ability and that it didn't matter. Absurd...

What's more likely...the 7 straight titles are a fluke...or you missed something in your evaluation of him as a player?

[AirFederer]

Blaze, when was MJ at his best? At what age?

[DMAVS41]

Being identical other than how they play sometimes....is not identical.

If one plays better....hes better.

Now...if he played better once...**** it. Could be any reason.

If he plays better all the time under pressure something caused it. And it isnt pixie dust. Its basketball.

Thats why I cant really see them as identical to begin with. "Identical other than..." isnt identical. The "Other than" removes the identical.

This is pure semantical BS.

I'm not claiming they are identical. They are identical outside of those moments. That isn't identical...nor is it my claim.

Identical outside of moments is absolutely not identical. Again you straw man. I never claimed they were identical.

I said identical outside of certain moments.

And thank you for answering...how players play actually ****ing matters.

Lets move on.

[Kblaze8855]

I dont need to know the future. If someone is better in it...I adjust my opinions. Why would I need to know the future to say how good someone is now?

Far as the golf....

I think that analogy brings me to my "Explaining why something ridiculous isnt what im saying" quota for the day.

If you cant see the difference between this and deciding how good someone is at golf by practice swings we arent even speaking the same language anymore.

Im gonna get back to watching Nick Calathes and his old man hair.

[DMAVS41]

I dont need to know the future. If someone is better in it...I adjust my opinions. Why would I need to know the future to say how good someone is now?

Far as the golf....

I think that analogy brings me to my "Explaining why something ridiculous isnt what im saying" quota for the day.

If you cant see the difference between this and deciding how good someone is at golf by practice swings we arent even speaking the same language anymore.

Im gonna get back to watching Nick Calathes and his old man hair.

I think it's a fair comparison given what you are saying.

And how good someone is right now is a reflection of how they play on the basketball court in the biggest moments, games, and series of the year.

I'm out as well. You admitted it mattered...I'm good.

[Simple Jack]

I think KBlaze is making a pretty simple argument.

Greatness/Legacy talk is not the same as how good a player is, hence using rings to define how good a player actually played the game of basketball isn't always the best way of looking at it.

Regarding how good a player is now; it is simply not decided by such a minuscule sample size. Any player can play well or bad in a single game, or a single series. It doesn't make them better or worse. It only turns to a better/worse discussion if its prolonged, at which point, as KBlaze said, there is a reason for it, it's not magic (the reason being the ability of the player). This is the disconnect that DMAVS does not seem to comprehend. There is a certain sample size of these 2 identical players, where the results were different (so...same career minus the x number of plays) where the players are no longer identical because the reason there is such a big difference in the results of those plays is no longer the randomness associated with playing basketball (a player will not make every shot, obviously, and will have errors), and rather that one is a better player than the other (and thus not identical).

I mean, a player could literally hit a full-court shot to win the game. In your scenario, you're telling me that the guy who hit the full-court shot is better? Forget from a legacy perspective, because that's about results and clearly a W is better than an L (even if you had no direct impact on the way the W or L was decided...such as whether a teammate hit the shot for the win or not in a player where ___ player wasn't involved). But from an ability/impact perspective? The guy who made it (all else being equal) is better?

If someone went on to win 4 rings at ages 38-42, playing at a worse level than he did when he was in his prime at 25-30 lets say...the concept becomes even clearer. With the exception of extremely unusual circumstances, the dude at 38-42 is NOT playing better basketball than himself at 25-30...it's retarded to suggest he is, simply because of the result which would, presumably, be largely because of circumstance.


So yea, it matters for legacy/greatness talk but a sample this small does not matter in regards to how good of a player that player is. Simply stated, Chris Paul is not a better basketball player after the buzzer sounded in game 7 than he was when there was 5 seconds left in the game. You would have to be clinically retarded to think those 5 seconds means he is now better at the game of basketball.

[DMAVS41]

I think KBlaze is making a pretty simple argument.

Greatness/Legacy talk is not the same as how good a player is, hence using rings to define how good a player actually played the game of basketball isn't always the best way of looking at it.

Regarding how good a player is now; it is simply not decided by such a minuscule sample size. Any player can play well or bad in a single game, or a single series. It doesn't make them better or worse. It only turns to a better/worse discussion if its prolonged, at which point, as KBlaze said, there is a reason for it, it's not magic (the reason being the ability of the player). This is the disconnect that DMAVS does not seem to comprehend. There is a certain sample size of these 2 identical players, where the results were different (so...same career minus the x number of plays) where the players are no longer identical because the reason there is such a big difference in the results of those plays is no longer the randomness associated with playing basketball (a player will not make every shot, obviously, and will have errors), and rather that one is a better player than the other (and thus not identical).

I mean, a player could literally hit a full-court shot to win the game. In your scenario, you're telling me that the guy who hit the full-court shot is better? Forget from a legacy perspective, because that's about results and clearly a W is better than an L (even if you had no direct impact on the way the W or L was decided...such as whether a teammate hit the shot for the win or not in a player where ___ player wasn't involved). But from an ability/impact perspective? The guy who made it (all else being equal) is better?

If someone went on to win 4 rings at ages 38-42, playing at a worse level than he did when he was in his prime at 25-30 lets say...the concept becomes even clearer. With the exception of extremely unusual circumstances, the dude at 38-42 is NOT playing better basketball than himself at 25-30...it's retarded to suggest he is, simply because of the result which would, presumably, be largely because of circumstance.


So yea, it matters for legacy/greatness talk but a sample this small does not matter in regards to how good of a player that player is. Simply stated, Chris Paul is not a better basketball player after the buzzer sounded in game 7 than he was when there was 5 seconds left in the game. You would have to be clinically retarded to think those 5 seconds means he is now better at the game of basketball.


Well, you have done a great job misrepresenting my position.

My position is that every game matters. It all adds up to how good a player is...I never once said Paul is better now than he was before. Total straw man...

I said we know more information now than we did before. Which is just a fact.

How a player plays is a reflection of how good they are at basketball.

Virtually my only point was that it actually matters for a player like Paul to come out and play great vs playing like shit in a game like game 7. How much it matters is the debate...not whether or not it matters at all.

To argue that it doesn't matter how players play is probably the dumbest thing I've heard on here.

I also never claimed it was magic...again total straw man. But how a player plays in certain situations is part of their ability. You simply don't know how Paul or any player is going to play in certain situations until you see them play in them. That is part of being good at basketball. Many players wear down or let pressure get to them in the playoffs. That is part of their basketball playing ability.

The above is actually the real disconnect...the view of you and Kblaze is way too narrow if you think how players play in the playoffs in certain circumstances isn't part of their broad basketball playing ability. It absolutely is.


Edit:

And yes. If you have two identical players outside of 1 play for their entire careers and one guy makes the shot/play and the other misses the shot/play...the guy that makes the shot is factually better. How much better in this case? Maybe like .00000000000000001% better.

We know this because if I gave you the option to draft the version that makes the play/shot or the guy that misses the play/shot...you of course are taking the guy that makes the play/shot.

So why even argue this? It's just as obvious as anything in this world. And once you admit that...you then admit that how these guys actually perform matters. Not just in terms of legacy, but in terms of how good they actually are. What you do on the court is a reflection of how good you actually are. If a guy does something better...even if it's just 1 play out of an otherwise identical career except that one shot (again..thought experiment here people)...he's factually better at playing basketball. Maybe only by a hair, but he's better.

Basically I'm arguing that you can't know exactly how good a player is until you see everything play out. The game isn't played at the practice gym. The only way to really figure out how good a player is...is to watch him play in as many circumstances as possible and see his impact in those circumstances. We will never know exactly because all players aren't in the same circumstances. But we do know more each time, especially in players' prime in the playoffs on good teams, they step on the court. It matters that Paul played great vs playing like shit.

If Paul played like shit, he'd be a very slightly...a hairs' width...worse player than the Paul we see before us now.

[Simple Jack]

My position is that every game matters. It all adds up to how good a player is...I never once said Paul is better now than he was before. Total straw man...


And yes. If you have two identical players outside of 1 play for their entire careers and one guy makes the shot/play and the other misses the shot/play...the guy that makes the shot is factually better. How much better in this case? Maybe like .00000000000000001% better.


These two quotes can't be reconciled.

Again, it may make the player "greater", but it doesn't make them better at the game of basketball. Reality doesn't work like that.

[Solefade]

i'm trying to understand kblaze's POV, but i just can't lol...

that game 7 from chris paul was something we've literally never seen before from him and that changes how he's looked at as a player for sure...how can anyone deny that

that game literally catapulted him into a higher echelon of great players especially against a legendary team like the Spurs

[La Frescobaldi]

i'm trying to understand kblaze's POV, but i just can't lol...

that game 7 from chris paul was something we've literally never seen before from him and that changes how he's looked at as a player for sure...how can anyone deny that

that game literally catapulted him into a higher echelon of great players especially against a legendary team like the Spurs

I hear you, I hear your idea, but no. Chris Paul had already done all that, he had already shown that level before.

When Chris was in New Orleans he had a devastatingly great series against the Lakers. I mean 2011.

But his New Orleans team was a joke. Yes a lot of it was due to David West injury, but that team wasn't deep enough to do anything. But Chris Paul himself was reaching the heights.... very, very thin air up there. Stratospheric.

His series, CP3 himself, against the Spurs was not better than that '11 series against the Lakers even though his N.O. team was defeated pretty easily.

[sp6r=underrated]

Chris Paul's Game 7 was one of the most enjoyable performances by an ATG player in my years of following the association. If the Spurs had hit a three pointer after Paul's shot it wouldn't impact my view of him as a player. Basketball isn't tennis. You can play great and have your team lose. This has happened to Paul many times in the past. It was nice that it didn't happen again.

[pauk]

You notice that I didnt turn up and go all "What say you now bitches?!" or make a big deal out of it right? You noticed that I didnt make a big deal out of when he missed the big shot early in the series? You notice that in all your time here....my favorite players or most hated...I dont show up acting an ass gloating about being right because of a single series, or play, or shot or anyone being proven wrong by the same?

Take note of that...and decide if asking me this question is really needed.

Chris Paul is one of my favorite players...but if he wins the next 7 titles he isnt better than Magic. If he never wins another playoff series...he wont in retrospect be worse than Mark Price or anyone I think he beats out now. Im not gonna sit and rebuild my PG rankings and shift Dave Bing over here and Frazier over there...maybe drop Terry Porter and slide Jason Kidd up here....after a series. Or a playoffs.

Hes 30. He will never get better(I suppose its possible in some areas...shooting for one...but on the whole hes not improving much). These games...these moments...determine legacy. The terribly overused and poorly defined thing 22 year olds on the internet cant stop talking about because its so easy to count up how many ____ a guy won or times he led the league in ____ and reach a conclusion.

Its easy to say "Well....if Lebron wins another ring thats 3 rings, 4 MVPs, and 11 all nba teams...he has to go over Bird" its difficult to have a reasonable discussion on who plays basketball better.

So we play these games...we assign value to this and that...and these arguments never end.

I do not much care about legacy talk.

I care about basketball playing ability. No doubt you will come and tell me "But it matters how people plaaaaaaaaaaay" as if anyone could honestly interpret my position to mean it literally doesnt matter...I will read it and wonder how many times im going to have to explain it before it sinks in....and then probably not bother doing it again and just watch the game.

People are gonna hate. Hate isnt rational...its emotional. The emotion makes people stupid. These stupid people are going to take nothing from last nights win if the Clippers dont win in the second round...and probably the WCF. It doesnt matter if the Spurs are better than a lot of teams that guys played in the finals. Stupid people and legacy addicts cling to the easily quantifiable.

The round ____ lost. Shooting percentages. Single plays going well or not.

I care only as far as "legacy" talk....which I dont care much about to begin with.

It matters for that. It doesnt matter much to me....because the more I interact with "legacy" fans the less I think of them. Not because legacy talk isnt a worthwhile subject....but because the people obsessed with it cant see the trees for the forest. They try to talk on too grand a scale and ignore or are ignorant to the many small things that make a forest what it is.

If we cant agree...we cant agree. I dont need to talk about it after every game.

Im never gonna show up and act an ass because someone I support plays well. Im never gonna come in and say "Oh...maybe hes not that good" after they dont. I'll evaluate the circumstances and keep it moving.

If you feel a need to keep putting things I didnt say in quotation marks, telling people I said things I didnt(I said I didnt think Paul would win....not that he couldnt...ive often said any star can lead a title run on a deep enough team), or calling me out for...in this case...supporting someone who played well and won? Or wondering if since I like the guy im gonna come in on some "Oh...this? Yea this was huge...." shit like what I think no longer applies when the situation is in my favor.....fine.

You do that. But you have to know im not gonna keep indulging it. At some point I have to just stop responding. How many times do you want to have this discussion?

I decide over a period of years how good I think you are. Then...it doesnt much change unless the player does. They may have ups...downs. Whatever. You choosing to twist that into me claiming to see the future....go right ahead. I cant keep explaining it forever.

:applause:

[Young X]

i'm trying to understand kblaze's POV, but i just can't lol...

that game 7 from chris paul was something we've literally never seen before from him and that changes how he's looked at as a player for sure...how can anyone deny that

that game literally catapulted him into a higher echelon of great players especially against a legendary team like the SpursHe had 22/14 in a game 7 win against the Warriors last season...

And does that 1 game/series really catapult him onto another level? People will probably forget about it if they don't get deeper in the playoffs. He's had plenty other great games/series/moments in the playoffs that people have forgotten.

[DMAVS41]

These two quotes can't be reconciled.

Again, it may make the player "greater", but it doesn't make them better at the game of basketball. Reality doesn't work like that.

You just aren't grasping this.

I'm saying that how a player performs in certain circumstances is actually part of how good they are. It's part of their basketball playing ability.

Hence why it's my opinion that it matters how a player plays.

You seem to be along the lines of something like this;

CP3 plays like shit in game 7 and you just say it doesn't matter and it was just circumstances

But where I think the big flaw is there is that being able to perform in certain circumstances is part of how good a player is.



And, just no, those statements make perfect sense. You just can't open your mind to a broad enough view of what determines how good a player is.

Is it not better to play great than to play like shit in a huge game? And why would 1 guy play great and another play like shit? It's because there is a difference between them that is reflected by on court performance. That is why I tried the thought experiment.

Just think about it. Imagine Lebron shot 1-22 in game 6 in 2012 and went home. You'd actually say that doesn't matter? That the Lebron we saw play that game wouldn't be the better player all other things equal?

Why even play the games! At what point do you determine you know exactly how good a player is?

[supermechasonic]

Good points KBLAZE.

[Solefade]

I hear you, I hear your idea, but no. Chris Paul had already done all that, he had already shown that level before.

When Chris was in New Orleans he had a devastatingly great series against the Lakers. I mean 2011.

But his New Orleans team was a joke. Yes a lot of it was due to David West injury, but that team wasn't deep enough to do anything. But Chris Paul himself was reaching the heights.... very, very thin air up there. Stratospheric.

His series, CP3 himself, against the Spurs was not better than that '11 series against the Lakers even though his N.O. team was defeated pretty easily.


the pressure is really different though from last year and this year and against a much more seasoned and challenging opponent, it's really different to me.

[Clifton]

Kblaze, which point guards in history do you think played better basketball than Paul? I'm curious.

Especially your thoughts on Paul vs. Kidd, Stockton, Isaiah, and Payton.

To me, Paul plays the position as well as it can played without having superhuman vision (Magic, Kidd) or physical advantages (Magic, Oscar).

[La Frescobaldi]

the pressure is really different though from last year and this year and against a much more seasoned and challenging opponent, it's really different to me.
who's talking about last year? I'm talking about what Paul did in 2011.

and who knows what pressure is? The best players make their own pressures and it has nothing to do with fans or media.