What is your general opinion of Blake Griffin career wise?

[Kblaze8855]

Perhaps not the best time to ask since he missed most of this season but im talking day one till now. In total.

One on hand....

Name the better combos of athletic ability and skill at that position...ever?

You will think of names...but not many.

Once he started to shoot? That 2-3 year run the combo of athletic ability, shooting, handles, and passing from that position is pretty rare. Playing with Deandre and then Drummond no doubt hurts his rebounding numbers(you just wont have the sane number next to guys like that). But hes got solid production. Better than solid really. Hes gonna retire with among the best highlight reels ever(kids in 20 years will be surprised he was that athletic.....as they always are with great past era athletes).

Hes a 6 time all star. Was 3rd in MVP voting one strange year that Joakim Noah was 4th. Hes had a great career....but my impression is....ISH doesnt **** with him.

Am I correct about that?

[msbutthurt]

He had sex with Kendall Jenner.

Then Ben Simmons had sex with Kendall Jenner.

Lamar Odom had sex with Klhoe Kardashian.

Then James Harden had sex with Klhoe Kardashian.

[Shogon]

Forgotten soon enough.

[Kblaze8855]

I suppose he and Vince will be test cases to see if highlights make you immortal. Both of them did more than Pistol Pete ever did.

[msbutthurt]

I suppose he and Vince will be test cases to see if highlights make you immortal. Both of them did more than Pistol Pete ever did.


You are obsessed with white people. Google inferiority complex.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I thought he was going to be a lot better than he ended up being. Injuries took a lot away from him but I still feel he should have been a dominant rebounder regardless of Jordan. Rodman still got tons off boards when he played with the Admiral. Also feel that he went perimeter with that jumper to early in his career. Again it's probably because of injuries but he was great when he was playing inside hitting the boards hard and dunking on everyone. When he started relying on the jumper he went from being the new Barkley to a kind of slow sf. Still a good player but not a franchise guy.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I suppose he and Vince will be test cases to see if highlights make you immortal. Both of them did more than Pistol Pete ever did.

Carter is a lock for the Hall. I doubt Griffin makes it without a big resurgence.

[Wally450]

Big leaper who had some really good seasons numbers wise. Just seems to be one of those players whose name gets lost with the 2nd-3rd tier players depending on how you rank him.

[Phoenix]

From a standpoint of talent relative to what he's accomplished?

https://i.gifer.com/4U6.gif

[Reggie43]

He had as much playoff success as Carlos Boozer...

[Whoah10115]

I thought he was going to be a lot better than he ended up being. Injuries took a lot away from him but I still feel he should have been a dominant rebounder regardless of Jordan. Rodman still got tons off boards when he played with the Admiral. Also feel that he went perimeter with that jumper to early in his career. Again it's probably because of injuries but he was great when he was playing inside hitting the boards hard and dunking on everyone. When he started relying on the jumper he went from being the new Barkley to a kind of slow sf. Still a good player but not a franchise guy.

I think this may be close to exact to me. He relied on that jumpshot but he was playing with Chris Paul. Paul should make the game easier, as Stockton usually did for Malone. Especially prior to 96/97, when Stockton left his prime and Malone maybe even peaked. Even then Malone, a better shooter, relied on it less than Griffin did.

Also agree on the rebounding. He and Jordan could have played closer on defense, utilizing DeAndre's athleticism and length on some perimeter plays and on the break. Would have been fun to see Griffin taking the rebound and going coast to coast.

Aldridge is great, and one my faves. He isn't as talented as Griffin, but I laugh when Clippersfan or anyone else takes Griffin over him. Aldridge played better defense, scored as much, rebounded more, better shooter, utilized his shot better, and the offense ran around him.

Had Griffin done more it would have been two #1s on LA...that team wins a title.

[Jasper]

Blake is one of my favorite players.
Remember he is a power forward , and developed into a sf style player , play making and controlling the pistons.
He showed his adaptability when he played for the Clippers , and he is showing it as a piston.
As salaries go , he is one of the elite players in the league , but also lets the team he is playing have some wiggle room to put players
around him...
In this day an age it basically takes 3 stars to make a run for a chip ..... He had it in LA , but something was a miss, and quite frankly I think
Jordan was not , or developed fast enough to make it occur.
I think if Blake moved out of Detroit , and hooked up with a team like the Nets ,, take less responsibility he would be that special player needed in the
playoffs. (One chip - he is in the HOF)

[tpols]

he was pretty good but definitely used to shrink during crunchtime in the playoffs.

[BigShotBob]

He took way too many jump shots for my liking. Never developed a reliable post game or power game. Just another footnote in history.

[Clippersfan86]

I think this may be close to exact to me. He relied on that jumpshot but he was playing with Chris Paul. Paul should make the game easier, as Stockton usually did for Malone. Especially prior to 96/97, when Stockton left his prime and Malone maybe even peaked. Even then Malone, a better shooter, relied on it less than Griffin did.

Also agree on the rebounding. He and Jordan could have played closer on defense, utilizing DeAndre's athleticism and length on some perimeter plays and on the break. Would have been fun to see Griffin taking the rebound and going coast to coast.

Aldridge is great, and one my faves. He isn't as talented as Griffin, but I laugh when Clippersfan or anyone else takes Griffin over him. Aldridge played better defense, scored as much, rebounded more, better shooter, utilized his shot better, and the offense ran around him.

Had Griffin done more it would have been two #1s on LA...that team wins a title.

The data disagrees with you. Aldridge had maybe 1-2 better years out of 10+. Aldridge was never a great enough defender to make up for Blake's huge edge in playmaking/running the offense. Rebounding has been similar, but Aldridge never played with a 15 rpg player like Blake had to deal with most of his career with DJ, then Drummond a year.

[Clippersfan86]

He took way too many jump shots for my liking. Never developed a reliable post game or power game. Just another footnote in history.

Wrong. He was a league leader for years in post scoring efficiency and finishing inside. To say he never developed it is foolish. Sadly, all the injuries forced him into more of a pick and pop game, which hurt his impact IMO.

[Clippersfan86]

I thought he was going to be a lot better than he ended up being. Injuries took a lot away from him but I still feel he should have been a dominant rebounder regardless of Jordan. Rodman still got tons off boards when he played with the Admiral. Also feel that he went perimeter with that jumper to early in his career. Again it's probably because of injuries but he was great when he was playing inside hitting the boards hard and dunking on everyone. When he started relying on the jumper he went from being the new Barkley to a kind of slow sf. Still a good player but not a franchise guy.

Rodman is the greatest rebounder of all time. Not a good comparison. Blake didn't fight DJ for boards. When DJ was there, Blake just got out of the way. You really believe a guy averaging 11+ rpg his first 3 seasons combined is suddenly incapable of more than 6-7 per game? I do think his pacivity on the glass was a bad move, but I know I why he did it.

[Clippersfan86]

As for the OP's question... Blake is another Kemp type career sadly. A superstar big with crazy gifts, that never got to live up to his potential. Kemp was derailed by weight, drugs, party life. Blake was derailed by injuries mostly and somewhat by immaturity. Blake's trajectory was legitimately top 5-7 ish all time PF, lock for first ballot HOF. His peak was around 2013-2015, then he just started getting hurt constantly and having drama with CP3 that screwed him up. He will be one of the NBA's saddest what could have been stories.

I was a bigger Blake fan than anyone as you all may know. His career breaks my heart. Just a couple changes here and there and he could of been a Clipper his entire career, and our first retired jersey. Now he's not even on good terms with the Clippers. He got in his own way too often.

[Carbine]

I think Blake lived up to his potential. He was excellent for a long time, he might still be excellent.

He helped turn one of the absolute shittiest teams into a formidable foe. He's damn near 22/9/5 for his career on good efficient scoring, that's a hell of an offensive run.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Rodman is the greatest rebounder of all time. Not a good comparison. Blake didn't fight DJ for boards. When DJ was there, Blake just got out of the way. You really believe a guy averaging 11+ rpg his first 3 seasons combined is suddenly incapable of more than 6-7 per game? I do think his pacivity on the glass was a bad move, but I know I why he did it.
You misunderstood what I wrote. Rodman was the greatest of the modern era but young Griffin was still an elite rebounder. He went ffrom being a force on the boards in his first real season to being ok for most of his career to not even averaging a whole 8 the last 4 seasons. Last season was at 4.7. A lot of that is injury but a lot of that is also him going perimeter, which was related to his injury. When he stopped doing the things he was great at he stopped being great.

[Whoah10115]

The data disagrees with you. Aldridge had maybe 1-2 better years out of 10+. Aldridge was never a great enough defender to make up for Blake's huge edge in playmaking/running the offense. Rebounding has been similar, but Aldridge never played with a 15 rpg player like Blake had to deal with most of his career with DJ, then Drummond a year.

Data doesn't mean anything.

How can Blake have a huge advantage on something Aldridge has an advantage in? Playmaking in an obvious sense, better passer, sure.

But Blake never ran the offense. He had one season where he stook out and Paul missed 20 games. But making plays and running an offense aren't the same. Being a very good passer and making other people better aren't the same. The game never went thru Blake, but the Trail Blazers went thru Aldridge.

In his last 5 seasons in Portland he was better than Griffin every season minus lockout season.

Blake plateau'd that year. He didn't maximize with Paul there. And his drop in rebounds was about more than playing with Jordan and Drummond. Shouldn't losing rebounds give him a greater chance of playing defense? But he never improved beyond being decent.

Aldridge isn't an elite defender but he's better than people think. He's definitely a C, as well, or at least someone who should play next to a mobile and athletic big like Jordan, or Robinson (Duncan) or anyone else. He uses his length and is always focused on being in the paint and going to the rim. He did that well and had presence. Portland went thru him in the post or utilized his jumpshot. And not just by him standing at the 3point line. Offensively, he had similarities with Duncan's game.

Blake should have used that jumpshot as a weapon in the armory. But he didn't.

[Whoah10115]

Wrong. He was a league leader for years in post scoring efficiency and finishing inside. To say he never developed it is foolish. Sadly, all the injuries forced him into more of a pick and pop game, which hurt his impact IMO.

Blake is definitely a better post scorer than people realize.

But not much better post player overall. You couldn't run thru him in the post and he's never developed that part of his game.

[tpols]

I think Blake lived up to his potential. He was excellent for a long time, he might still be excellent.

He helped turn one of the absolute shittiest teams into a formidable foe. He's damn near 22/9/5 for his career on good efficient scoring, that's a hell of an offensive run.

chris paul was pretty easily the best players on the clippers so you cant really say he turned them into a formidable foe.

they would've still been an easy playoff team with just CP3, Deandre Jordan, and role players.

[eliteballer]

HGH is what made him look inhuman athletically.

[rawimpact]

Modern Amare Stoudemire with more skill and less heart.

[BigShotBob]

Wrong. He was a league leader for years in post scoring efficiency and finishing inside. To say he never developed it is foolish. Sadly, all the injuries forced him into more of a pick and pop game, which hurt his impact IMO.

League leader when his only competition for post scoring was.....who? Zach Randolf? Who was better than him anyways?

He'd be the 20th "best" post scorer in the 90's behind Ronnie Seikaly.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Amare Stoudamire level player and he destroyed Tim Duncan in 2015 playoffs just like Amare used to give it to Duncan.

The flip side of things: he is injury prone, not good enough overall to be a franchise player, partys too much with Chandler Parsons doing a buddy comedy shtick, dates Kardashians, and comes off as a douchebag at times. All things ultimately ruining his career.

[rawimpact]

Amare Stoudamire level player and he destroyed Tim Duncan in 2015 playoffs just like Amare used to give it to Duncan.

The flip side of things: he is injury prone, not good enough overall to be a franchise player, partys too much with Chandler Parsons doing a buddy comedy shtick, dates Kardashians, and comes off as a douchebag at times. All things ultimately ruining his career.


Modern Amare Stoudemire with more skill and less heart.
:coleman:

[FultzNationRISE]

I honestly believe if he had even an average wingspan for an NBA power forward, he’d be the clear cut second “best since MJ” right now after Lebron (who’s obviously surpassed MJ). Top 15 all time already.

In a lot of ways hes like a cross between Lebron and Duncan, but his alligator arms make it so awkward for him to finish around the basket if he’s not able to get above everyone for a dunk. He actually has good moves, but he still has to shoot from very unnatural angles to avoid getting blocked down low.

If he had long arms on top of everything else, he’d prob be a GOAT candidate. Thats assuming he kept the same focus he had at the beginning of his career for the entire time. Which I think if he had become a legit BITW type he would have.

[Clippersfan86]

You misunderstood what I wrote. Rodman was the greatest of the modern era but young Griffin was still an elite rebounder. He went ffrom being a force on the boards in his first real season to being ok for most of his career to not even averaging a whole 8 the last 4 seasons. Last season was at 4.7. A lot of that is injury but a lot of that is also him going perimeter, which was related to his injury. When he stopped doing the things he was great at he stopped being great.

I'm specifically responding to your sentence of "He should have been a dominant rebounder regardless of Jordan", which is what I disagree with. Jordan averaged like 14 rpg in Blake's prime. Blake usually just let him grab them. It's exactly why the averages lowered so much at the time it did (the emergence of DJ). DJ's explosion to a star caliber big started in 2013-2014. The 5 year span from 2014-2018, DJ averaged about 14.5 rpg. That first year of DJ going off Blake put up 9.5 rpg, but following that he hovered around 8 rpg. I'm saying having a rebounder like DJ in the middle absolutely will drop RPG 3-4. Especially when DJ had a reputation of padding the boards and stealing rebounds from our guards/wings as it is. I agree, he should of done more but as you said the injuries+going more to perimeter were icings on top of it.

[Clippersfan86]

Blake is definitely a better post scorer than people realize.

But not much better post player overall. You couldn't run thru him in the post and he's never developed that part of his game.

His offense was more bully ball like Brand and Zbo somewhat. He wasn't a guy who had beautiful post moves. He used his strength and athleticism for leverage though and did have an underrated drop step, power hook shot etc. My personal opinion is I don't care how skilled a player seems or looks. I care about the results. I watched years of Brand score this way too. He was no Hakeem, but he played bully ball in the paint and got buckets at a great clip.

As for running the offense through him in the post, that's literally what the team did the first 3 years of his career, and the Clippers were an elite offense basically the entire Blake era. Much of that was CP3's brilliance, but sadly Blake's impact gets lost. Especially his playmaking. I'd put him up against Chris Webber any day as a Point Forward, yet Webber gets 3x the hype.

[King Baron]

His dunking ability most reminds me of Shawn Kemp (along with Amare).

Generally, injuries always stole his post-season opportunties. Great player to watch, crisp passing from the post.

[Carbine]

chris paul was pretty easily the best players on the clippers so you cant really say he turned them into a formidable foe.

they would've still been an easy playoff team with just CP3, Deandre Jordan, and role players.

There you go again twisting words to fit whatever argument you're trying to create.

There is a major difference between "Helped" and "all by himself"

Cut that shit out.

[fv2.0]

A supreme athletic talent who consistently developed his skill over time, but who unfortunately had injuries derail what should have been a Hall of Fame career. There's still hope but, at this point I think its safe to say that he didn't live up to his full potential.

[NBAGOAT]

Could sneak into the hall. Was legitimately top 5 in 2014. Injuries kind of made his career a bit disappointing. He had to switch to a more perimeter oriented also because league was changing and hadn’t expanded to the 3pt line so wasn’t as good for a few years even when healthy(15-17).

Had a great year last year with a completely different game from his earlier years with huge improvement in 3pt shooting but I think it might be his last. Just too many injuries for him

Edit: as others have said. He’s always had elite playmaking which is very valuable. Unfortunately bit overshadowed by draymond’s

[1987_Lakers]

As for the OP's question... Blake is another Kemp type career sadly. A superstar big with crazy gifts, that never got to live up to his potential. Kemp was derailed by weight, drugs, party life. Blake was derailed by injuries mostly and somewhat by immaturity. Blake's trajectory was legitimately top 5-7 ish all time PF, lock for first ballot HOF. His peak was around 2013-2015, then he just started getting hurt constantly and having drama with CP3 that screwed him up. He will be one of the NBA's saddest what could have been stories.

I was a bigger Blake fan than anyone as you all may know. His career breaks my heart. Just a couple changes here and there and he could of been a Clipper his entire career, and our first retired jersey. Now he's not even on good terms with the Clippers. He got in his own way too often.

Came into this thread to say Kemp, in terms of on court impact both are similar. Both consistent all-stars that had massive potential, but at the end of the day not good enough to be a top 10 player.

[Reggie43]

Kemp as the secondary guy or co best player on the team has had deeper playoff runs and had multiple wins against alltime greats like Malone and Olajuwon and matching up with them pretty good at times.

Kemp just seemed like a more physically imposing player compared to Blake and was a much better defender. Kemp never shied away from contact and always played the right way.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

chris paul was pretty easily the best players on the clippers so you cant really say he turned them into a formidable foe.

they would've still been an easy playoff team with just CP3, Deandre Jordan, and role players.

Yes Paul was the best player on 2015 Clippers by far, his shot over Duncan stopped a back to back title run I think. But then Paul got hurt

2018 Paul was arguably the best player on rockets in west finals up 3-2 on Durant warriors but then he got hurt.

Just unlucky timing from Paul but he took Kawhi/Duncan down by a shot and he was up 3-2 on Durant/Curry

[NBAGOAT]

Kemp as the secondary guy or co best player on the team has had deeper playoff runs and had multiple wins against alltime greats like Malone and Olajuwon and matching up with them pretty good at times.

Kemp just seemed like a more physically imposing player compared to Blake and was a much better defender. Kemp never shied away from contact and always played the right way.

seattle was deeper than the clippers imo. Clippers always had a big weakness at sf while the sonics were solid with perkins. the clippers also beat the sours in 15, they're an all time great team though they didnt have a star like Malone/Olajuwon.

Kemp was more physical, a better defender(though you overrate him a little he's very foul prown) and better rebounder. he's a black hole on offense at times while blake is an elite passer for his position. I think that's enough to make up for kemp's strengths over him

[Lebron23]

Definitely a hall of famer someday. I hope he bounce back next season. He had a great season last year very unfortunate he got hurt this year. Last year he changed his game, and improved his perimeter shooting.

[Clippersfan86]

Kemp as the secondary guy or co best player on the team has had deeper playoff runs and had multiple wins against alltime greats like Malone and Olajuwon and matching up with them pretty good at times.

Kemp just seemed like a more physically imposing player compared to Blake and was a much better defender. Kemp never shied away from contact and always played the right way.

Peak Griffin (3rd in MVP and 2015 playoff Griffin) was better. Kemp was a better defender, but the gap as playmakers was ever greater in favor of Blake. Rebounding for career is similar, although I'd give Kemp the edge. Kemp never once averaged 20 ppg despite taking more shots. In other words, Kemp was more inefficient as a scorer.

So basically Blake was the more consistent scorer, way better playmaker. Kemp a better defender and slightly better rebounder. His legendary playoff run adds to his resume, but it doesn't discredit all of the regular seasons Blake was a much better player. Not to mention Blake's 2015 playoff run tops Kemp's 95+96 runs anyway.

Blake Griffin 2015 playoffs: 25.5 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 6.1 apg, 1 bpg.

Shawn Kemp 1995 Playoffs: 24.8 ppg, 12 rpg, 2.8 apg. 1996 playoffs 20.9 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 1.5 apg, 2 bpg.

Both played great opponents. Clippers played the Spurs+Rockets for example. The Spurs team had a near 7 SRS. Let's be honest too, Clippers losing up 3-1 to Rockets was a fluke that if you ran it 1000 times in a scenario, it probably happens 10 times. Blake put up numbers not seen since Big O that run.

[Reggie43]

seattle was deeper than the clippers imo. Clippers always had a big weakness at sf while the sonics were solid with perkins. the clippers also beat the sours in 15, they're an all time great team though they didnt have a star like Malone/Olajuwon.

Kemp was more physical, a better defender(though you overrate him a little he's very foul prown) and better rebounder. he's a black hole on offense at times while blake is an elite passer for his position. I think that's enough to make up for kemp's strengths over him

They had great depth earlier in his career but his Finals team was no deeper than Blake's best teams. Nate, Askew and Ervin Johnson is not a playoff rotation that you brag about.

Not saying that Kemp was much better than Blake as players but he did have a better playoff resume which is a big thing in these comparisons because stats wont show their intangibles which is equally important in terms of winning.

[Reggie43]

Kemp never once averaged 20 ppg despite taking more shots. In other words, Kemp was more inefficient as a scorer.
.

Took more shots and was inefficient? In their Finals run he was barely hoisting up 13 shots a game at 57% shooting while Blake was at close to 20 shots on 51% at his best run.

Probably the most underrated aspect of Kemp's game was how he never shot the ball at volume to allow teammates to make plays for themselves for better team chemistry. He never needed the ball that much to make a huge impact. Somebody similar is Rasheed who never shot in volume despite the obvious talent.

[Clippersfan86]

Took more shots and was inefficient? In their Finals run he was barely hoisting up 13 shots a game at 57% shooting while Blake was at close to 20 shots on 51% at his best run.

Probably the most underrated aspect of Kemp's game was how he never shot the ball at volume to allow teammates to make plays for themselves for better team chemistry. He never needed the ball that much to make a huge impact. Somebody similar is Rasheed who never shot in volume despite the obvious talent.

Are you only comparing the players in the playoffs? Because I'm talking about the regular season when I'm referring to the efficiency in this particular instance. Kemp generally stepped up for the playoffs, but that's not all that matters in a legacy discussion. As for shot attempts, you're actually right, I didn't remember Blake being at 2 shots more than Kemp per game on average. He still had slightly better TS% and way higher ORTG (112 ORTG vs 106 ORTG for career). He was just more efficient.

[Clippersfan86]

They had great depth earlier in his career but his Finals team was no deeper than Blake's best teams. Nate, Askew and Ervin Johnson is not a playoff rotation that you brag about.

Not saying that Kemp was much better than Blake as players but he did have a better playoff resume which is a big thing in these comparisons because stats wont show their intangibles which is equally important in terms of winning.

Easy to have a better playoff resume when Blake got injured LITERALLY every single playoff run outside of two years. One thing about Kemp is he wasn't injury prone. He played 75+ games all but two years. He was MUCH more durable. I do agree that the Clippers were every bit as deep as the Sonics, if not more. It's not a depth injury. It was untimely injuries every year+mental fortitude issues for the team as a whole.

[Reggie43]

Are you only comparing the players in the playoffs? Because I'm talking about the regular season when I'm referring to the efficiency in this particular instance. Kemp generally stepped up for the playoffs, but that's not all that matters in a legacy discussion. As for shot attempts, you're actually right, I didn't remember Blake being at 2 shots more than Kemp per game on average. He still had slightly better TS% and way higher ORTG (112 ORTG vs 106 ORTG for career). He was just more efficient.

Kemp in his best year was at .631 TS% while Blake had around .583 In their best playoff runs Kemp had .640 while Blake had .557

[LukeWalton]

Blake had Kendall
then Ben
then Kuzma
then Booker

so its like Booker also had a threesome with Blake, Simmons and Kuzma

Blake still cant believe it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8hYHcmWUjs

[oldtimer28]

Griffin better and worse.

Better in skills development.

Worse in impact.

Injuries are tough.

[Clippersfan86]

Kemp in his best year was at .631 TS% while Blake had around .583 In their best playoff runs Kemp had .640 while Blake had .557

Seems like you're cherry picking for your entire argument and moving around goalposts. I didn't say Blake was more efficient in Kemp's best season. I'm talking about overall in their career. Blake is at 56% TS for his career, Kemp around 55.5%. Very close, but when you factor in that Blake has the edge as he took 2 more shots per game, and had a 3% higher usage. Again, wasn't at any point saying Blake was automatically better. I think it's a very good debate, although I give the slight edge to Blake. I'm literally the one who compared him to Kemp.

[Reggie43]

Seems like you're cherry picking for your entire argument and moving around goalposts. I didn't say Blake was more efficient in Kemp's best season. I'm talking about overall in their career. Blake is at 56% TS for his career, Kemp around 55.5%. Very close, but when you factor in that Blake has the edge as he took 2 more shots per game, and had a 3% higher usage. Again, wasn't at any point saying Blake was automatically better. I think it's a very good debate, although I give the slight edge to Blake. I'm literally the one who compared him to Kemp.

Should we not compare them with their prime years as opposed to overall seasons wherein Kemp's averages would be pulled down with past his prime/injured/overweight versions while Blake is still at his prime?

Calling me out for cherry picking when you were outright lying with your arguments lol.

[msbutthurt]

Blake had Kendall
then Ben
then Kuzma
then Booker

so its like Booker also had a threesome with Blake, Simmons and Kuzma

Blake still cant believe it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8hYHcmWUjs



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT9KtUS4mvI



Wiener brother world order

[Clippersfan86]

Should we not compare them with their prime years as opposed to overall seasons wherein Kemp's averages would be pulled down with past his prime/injured/overweight versions while Blake is still at his prime?

Calling me out for cherry picking when you were outright lying with your arguments lol.

Tell me the part I lied about? More like you misunderstood my point or intentionally made up a different goal post. I literally said Blake was more efficient. That's it. He had a 112 ORTG vs 106 despite higher usage+shots. He also had a smidge higher TS%+better PER. Blake may be in his prime, but due to injuries he's nowhere near the player he should of been obviously. So it's not an unfair comparison. If you cut out Kemp's last 3 or 4 seasons the argument doesn't change much.

[Reggie43]

Tell me the part I lied about? More like you misunderstood my point or intentionally made up a different goal post. I literally said Blake was more efficient. That's it. He had a 112 ORTG vs 106 despite higher usage+shots. He also had a smidge higher TS%+better PER. Blake may be in his prime, but due to injuries he's nowhere near the player he should of been obviously. So it's not an unfair comparison. If you cut out Kemp's last 3 or 4 seasons the argument doesn't change much.




Kemp never once averaged 20 ppg despite taking more shots. In other words, Kemp was more inefficient as a scorer.



Kemp 98-99 20.5ppg 13.7 shots

Kemp single season peak field goal attempts per game 14.6, career 10.7 fga

Blake single season peak field goal attempts per game 17.9, career 16.3 fga

Blake whole 10 year career TS% .561 FG% .498

Kemp first 10 years of career TS% .572 FG% .508


Yeah lets act like Kemp's efficiency brought down by substance abuse/addictions and being overweight past his prime makes Blake the more efficient player lol

[Clippersfan86]

Kemp 98-99 20.5ppg 13.7 shots

Kemp single season peak field goal attempts per game 14.6, career 10.7 fga

Blake single season peak field goal attempts per game 17.9, career 16.3 fga

Blake whole 10 year career TS% .561 FG% .498

Kemp first 10 years of career TS% .572 FG% .508


Yeah lets act like Kemp's efficiency brought down by substance abuse/addictions and being overweight past his prime makes Blake the more efficient player lol

You understand how efficiency works right? It typically goes down with more usage+shot attempts, not up. So Kemp took 3 less shots per game for only a 1% TS improvement in those 10 seasons. Again, yes... based on that and multiple things such as ORTG, OBPM (Blake's was twice as good those 10 years)... Blake was more efficient. Not sure what you're upset about? Blake is the more efficient player, because he's the more efficient player. TS% is the best individual shooting efficiency stat, but it doesn't mean it's the only relevant one. You have to factor in other things I mentioned for a more complete picture.

[Reggie43]

You understand how efficiency works right? It typically goes down with more usage+shot attempts, not up. So Kemp took 3 less shots per game for only a 1% TS improvement in those 10 seasons. Again, yes... based on that and multiple things such as ORTG, OBPM (Blake's was twice as good those 10 years)... Blake was more efficient. Not sure what you're upset about?

Why would I even be upset when I just caught you lying lol.

Not even a big fan of Kemp but I do appreciate his game like I do most of the players of that era. I think he was slightly better than Blake but I wont be upset if someone has Blake over him but lets not lie about things easily searched on the net just to prove a point.

[Axe]

His dunking ability most reminds me of Shawn Kemp (along with Amare).

Generally, injuries always stole his post-season opportunties. Great player to watch, crisp passing from the post.
Yeah, he was very good in his prime. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the longevity to sustain that.

[Clippersfan86]

Why would I even be upset when I just caught you lying lol.

Not even a big fan of Kemp but I do appreciate his game like I do most of the players of that era. I think he was slightly better than Blake but I wont be upset if someone has Blake over him but lets not lie about things easily searched on the net just to prove a point.

Again, still waiting on the lie.

[iamgine]

Just based on feeling and without looking at stats, I feel Blake at his prime was one of the strongest and most athletic at his position but unskilled. When his athleticism came down, he learned some skills and managed to still become all star level talent. Blake is injury prone however and that hampered his entire career. And I don't feel like he had the drive to win at all cost like his former teammate CP3 had.

[Reggie43]

Again, still waiting on the lie.

You said Kemp took more shots than Blake . How are you even going to spin this when it is straight from the horse's mouth :lol

[Clippersfan86]

You said Kemp took more shots than Blake . How are you even going to spin this when it is straight from the horse's mouth :lol

Oh, I was simply wrong. Not a lie. I thought I acknowledged that earlier? I ****ed up. I think at first I had both BBALL Ref's up and crossed the pages. Why would I intentionally "lie" about something like that?

[Axe]

🍿🍿🍿

[Reggie43]

🍿🍿🍿

:cheers:

[Kblaze8855]

I only hit reply to say there’s no way Kemp took less shots than Blake but the I saw you already covered that.

What a weird thing to say if you remember watching Shawn Kemp. Kemp would not shoot at all for like....whole halves. If they didn’t run plays for him to open games he might have taken 8 shots a game the whole 90s.

[HylianNightmare]

Felt like the under chieved with some of those pretty stacked clippers teams and then he put up great numbers in Detroit with no one else on the roster I would love to see him get on a better bill team now that hes getting towards the tail end of his career and see what he can do

[Whoah10115]

His offense was more bully ball like Brand and Zbo somewhat. He wasn't a guy who had beautiful post moves. He used his strength and athleticism for leverage though and did have an underrated drop step, power hook shot etc. My personal opinion is I don't care how skilled a player seems or looks. I care about the results. I watched years of Brand score this way too. He was no Hakeem, but he played bully ball in the paint and got buckets at a great clip.

As for running the offense through him in the post, that's literally what the team did the first 3 years of his career, and the Clippers were an elite offense basically the entire Blake era. Much of that was CP3's brilliance, but sadly Blake's impact gets lost. Especially his playmaking. I'd put him up against Chris Webber any day as a Point Forward, yet Webber gets 3x the hype.

That's just not true. Once Paul got there he was the guy. And I watched a lot of regular season basketball those two seasons.

True on bully ball, but can't be compared to Randolph. ZBo was elite, had moves and outstanding footwork. The lack of those things is why Griffin couldn't consistently do it. It has little to do with esthetics. Efficiency and results aren't always the same.

Also, as far as the Kemp comparison, I won't chime in other than to say it's not useful to post stats for efficiency and things. Comparing across 15-20 years.

Also, Kemp was never a standout scorer, statistically. But those Seattle teams didn't play that way.

And also they were much deeper than LA. That Sonics team would win a title during that decade.

[Stephonit]

He needs to join the Warriors.

[Phoenix]

It's become a bit of a cliche comment but Kemp would have been a 20/10 consistently in this era. He was taking 12-13 shots a game, which is low for a guy who peaked as a top 10 player in the mid 90s. I see nothing about his skillset/attributes that doesn't translate, including his athleticism that so many younger fans use as a definitive measure of modern era portability. I don't think he's any more a solid # 2 guy on a contender in 2020 than Blake was at his Clippers apex, though.

[FireDavidKahn]

He's been relegated to obscurity.

[Clippersfan86]

I only hit reply to say there’s no way Kemp took less shots than Blake but the I saw you already covered that.

What a weird thing to say if you remember watching Shawn Kemp. Kemp would not shoot at all for like....whole halves. If they didn’t run plays for him to open games he might have taken 8 shots a game the whole 90s.

The first team that got me into basketball were the 96 Sonics. I was also like 11 years old and a casual fan. Not sure why that's surprising that 20+ years ago people's memory isn't the same lol. Although again, it's not particularly important in this debate. It was a small mistake, that does little to alter the conclusion. The shot attempts were a little less than 3 per game difference. Again, if a guy is taking 3 more shots per game, has a higher usage... and only gives up 1% TS in peak 10 years... he's likely more efficient. When you take less shots, obviously you see increased efficiency 99% of the time.

Bottom line is people love shitting on Griffin, and have been doing it his entire career. Not with actual data, but with cherry picking and blatant falsehood narratives.

[Clippersfan86]

That's just not true. Once Paul got there he was the guy. And I watched a lot of regular season basketball those two seasons.

True on bully ball, but can't be compared to Randolph. ZBo was elite, had moves and outstanding footwork. The lack of those things is why Griffin couldn't consistently do it. It has little to do with esthetics. Efficiency and results aren't always the same.

Also, as far as the Kemp comparison, I won't chime in other than to say it's not useful to post stats for efficiency and things. Comparing across 15-20 years.

Also, Kemp was never a standout scorer, statistically. But those Seattle teams didn't play that way.

And also they were much deeper than LA. That Sonics team would win a title during that decade.

I watched Blake's entire career. Literally never missed a game. He was unquestionably the go to player and #1 option. Paul was the closer obviously, but as a whole Blake was the guy, and CP3 acknowledged that constantly. You may of watched a lot.. that's different than watching 90+ games per year man. The lengths people go to discredit BG while propping up CP3 are like a plague. They were an elite tandem. Yes CP3 had more impact overall and was the more dominant guy as the ball was in his hands a lot more, and he was the best guard defender in the NBA. In terms of Blake being the go to though? It was him. Zbo had better footwork, but the gap isn't huge (again this is a narrative that carried for years, I've shown dozens of times that at his peak Blake's post game was elite even cracking 1+ ppp in the post in his prime).

I spent 10 years proving the "all he does is dunk" wrong, even many years after data and film showed that to be a CLEAR falsehood. I'm telling you, the implication that Blake wasn't one of the best post scorers is PATENTLY FALSE. Like a blatant lie. His moves weren't always pretty but his points in the paint, finishing percentages, PPP, ISO in the post were fantastic. He actually beats Randolph in those areas most years. Zbo was far more of a pick and pop big.

[Clippersfan86]

:cheers:

So besides nitpicking a mistake on shot attempts, were you going to respond to anything else relevant? Like how Griffin's 2015 playoff run is better than any of Kemp's playoff runs? People bringing up the series vs Barkley are talking about 93 when he averaged 15/10/3 in the entire playoff run? Or 95 in his best individual run in which they lost 3-1 to the Lakers in a backdoor sweep? I mean... Blake didn't have the best playoff runs due to injuries damn near every year, but to act like Kemp is the no brainer is silly. Blake was actually a go to player who faced double teams on a nightly basis. The arguments you've made (like low shot attempts) actually hurt the argument for Kemp. Blake's a more efficient offensive player despite being the focus of the defense every night, taking more shots and handling the ball a lot more. Sounds like a great argument for Blake!

[Clippersfan86]

From 2014. Again, false narratives blown up. Blake was a legit #1 option at his peak, Kemp wasn't. Blake faced double teams every night.

https://*********.com/2014/03/26/why-is-blake-griffin-so-much-better-now/


When a player improves his jump shot, most fans are able to take notice of this improved skill set as it’s easy to track and relatively blatant to see. However, when a player improves their back-to-the-basket post game, it’s not as easily detectable to the untrained eye. The ‘Blake Griffin has no offensive game and can only dunk’ theorists have no choice other than to be silenced after dissecting Griffin’s post game.

When Clipper team leader Chris Paul went down for 19 games, most thought it would expose Griffin’s perceived ‘lack of a post game.’ Instead, just the opposite happened. Instead of averaging his normal 3.9 post-up shot attempts per game, Griffin averaged slightly under 6 per game. Griffin shot 48 percent from the block during that stretch ranking him in the top 82 percent of the NBA. That puts him ahead of low-post aficionados Al Jefferson and Kevin Love.

Even more impressive was the 1.03 points per possession the Clippers averaged when Blake touched the ball in the low post. And 26 percent of Griffin’s post-up situations resulted in him drawing a foul, which is the highest rate in the league. This signals that defenders realize they are at a disadvantage once Griffin gets position and would rather put him on the line than let him do damage in the post.

Maybe in the past that was a good idea, but not anymore as Griffin has also improved his free-throw efficiency shooting to 71 percent. Saying Blake Griffin has no post game is like saying life was better without cell phones. The argument comes from people who are stuck in the past and don’t see the improved change.

Normally, I don’t congratulate and encourage increased isolation ability improvement. Yes, it’s a great skill to have especially in the NBA, but normally the increased ability to play in isolation situations goes hand and hand with more ball-stopping iso attempts. This in turn kills offensive flow if used in the wrong way. Just as the Knicks.

However, Blake Griffin is in a different boat than most isolation elites. The key is knowing when the situation is right and ideal for the team as a whole to isolate. Griffin’s basketball IQ allows him to pick and choose opportune times to isolate.

The majority of Griffin’s iso situations, 48.5 percent, result in him attacking the hoop on the drive or pulling up for a jumper. In these situations, Griffin is averaging a scorching 1.136 points per possession, which ranks him in the top 95 percent of the league. But what is even more valuable is Griffin’s efficiency when the shot clock is under 4 seconds, converting at a clip of nearly 43 percent, which puts him in the top 80 percent of the NBA.

Not only has Griffin increased his ability to isolate and finish on his own, he also is one of the most underrated passers in the league. When Griffin drives and kicks the Clippers are averaging 1.429 points per possession. That is a ridiculous number. That means if every possession in a Clippers game was a Blake Griffin drive and kick, the Clippers would be averaging 142.9 points per game. So if anyone ever tells you, “Blake Griffin can only dunk.” Please just calmly walk away as some arguments are too ridiculous to even have.

[Clippersfan86]

CP3's playstyle actually hurt Blake individually from ever truly peaking, which nobody wants to acknowledge. Blake at his absolute peak was the 3rd in MVP race behind peak KD+Lebron when CP3 went down 19 games. He went to a STUPID level. Then in the 2015 playoffs, including a blazing start vs Houston when CP3 missed the first few games of that series. Blake was at his best as our Point Forward with the ball in his hands. As great as CP3 is, he didn't make Blake better at all.

[Whoah10115]

I watched Blake's entire career. Literally never missed a game. He was unquestionably the go to player and #1 option. Paul was the closer obviously, but as a whole Blake was the guy, and CP3 acknowledged that constantly. You may of watched a lot.. that's different than watching 90+ games per year man. The lengths people go to discredit BG while propping up CP3 are like a plague. They were an elite tandem. Yes CP3 had more impact overall and was the more dominant guy as the ball was in his hands a lot more, and he was the best guard defender in the NBA. In terms of Blake being the go to though? It was him. Zbo had better footwork, but the gap isn't huge (again this is a narrative that carried for years, I've shown dozens of times that at his peak Blake's post game was elite even cracking 1+ ppp in the post in his prime).

I spent 10 years proving the "all he does is dunk" wrong, even many years after data and film showed that to be a CLEAR falsehood. I'm telling you, the implication that Blake wasn't one of the best post scorers is PATENTLY FALSE. Like a blatant lie. His moves weren't always pretty but his points in the paint, finishing percentages, PPP, ISO in the post were fantastic. He actually beats Randolph in those areas most years. Zbo was far more of a pick and pop big.

I'm not taking for granted how much you watched him, and I don't disagree on him being good in the post. But Randolph's post game went well beyond tangible output. Teams had that as their focus going into a game against him. He forced doubles, drew fouls, and the Grizzlies were painfully slow at times, to the point it isn't a surprise that Conley never made an all-star appearance.

And I'm not questioning him being the #1 option, but the PG on that team was the guy the offense ran thru. Not just because he's a PG or just because he's that and a great player, but Chris Paul was the focal point.

Kidd played with Mashburn and Jackson (I know Griffin is better) and, even as a rookie, was their guy. Jackson put up 25+ppg.

It wasn't a Griffin-led offense overall. He was the go-to scorer, but Paul was the one looking to play him. Magic was being outscored by Kareem when he was already their best player.

[Clippersfan86]

I'm not taking for granted how much you watched him, and I don't disagree on him being good in the post. But Randolph's post game went well beyond tangible output. Teams had that as their focus going into a game against him. He forced doubles, drew fouls, and the Grizzlies were painfully slow at times, to the point it isn't a surprise that Conley never made an all-star appearance.

And I'm not questioning him being the #1 option, but the PG on that team was the guy the offense ran thru. Not just because he's a PG or just because he's that and a great player, but Chris Paul was the focal point.

Kidd played with Mashburn and Jackson (I know Griffin is better) and, even as a rookie, was their guy. Jackson put up 25+ppg.

It wasn't a Griffin-led offense overall. He was the go-to scorer, but Paul was the one looking to play him. Magic was being outscored by Kareem when he was already their best player.

Overall I understand and agree with this post mostly. But just be aware Blake drew more fouls in the post than Zbo, and was double teamed constantly there. It may not be as obvious, but the data is available and film. I do agree CP3 was the engine of our offense obviously, Blake was more important than most care to acknowledge.

[Axe]

He needs to join the Warriors.
That's a big no no. :no:

[PeroAntic]

One of the strongest, most all round players in the game. and one of the most underrated. Monster in the post. The way he improved and expanded his game, and compensated for his decline in athleticism is phenomenal.

[Whoah10115]

Overall I understand and agree with this post mostly. But just be aware Blake drew more fouls in the post than Zbo, and was double teamed constantly there. It may not be as obvious, but the data is available and film. I do agree CP3 was the engine of our offense obviously, Blake was more important than most care to acknowledge.

That I can accept, and I will actually agree with your previous post, which I only just saw.

I don't know if it's outright playstyle, but Paul and Griffin should have been a greater combo. I was on the site when he joined. It was always an almost thing.

I think the perceived immaturity could have come out then, if it ever did. Paul appears to be a complete family guy, and older than Griffin. But he's only like four years older, and clearly Paul got along well with Jordan on the floor.

I think Blake is funny, and charismatic, and at times he's even charming. But he always struck me as a bit of douche and maybe that ego prevented what should have been an all-time duo. Instead, they were just two great players playing together.

Some of that is on Paul tho. Doesn't help having Del Negro and Rivers. Vinny had some good things but clearly couldn't get it together, and they didn't gel.

Doc has been overrated since he got Allen and Garnett.

[Clippersfan86]

That I can accept, and I will actually agree with your previous post, which I only just saw.

I don't know if it's outright playstyle, but Paul and Griffin should have been a greater combo. I was on the site when he joined. It was always an almost thing.

I think the perceived immaturity could have come out then, if it ever did. Paul appears to be a complete family guy, and older than Griffin. But he's only like four years older, and clearly Paul got along well with Jordan on the floor.

I think Blake is funny, and charismatic, and at times he's even charming. But he always struck me as a bit of douche and maybe that ego prevented what should have been an all-time duo. Instead, they were just two great players playing together.

Some of that is on Paul tho. Doesn't help having Del Negro and Rivers. Vinny had some good things but clearly couldn't get it together, and they didn't gel.

Doc has been overrated since he got Allen and Garnett.

Agree to all of this. Blake's first 2-3 years he was like young KD where he was a shy, insanely hard working guy. He slowly became a douche a few years into the league. Sadly the fame, money etc changes seemingly everyone. I've seen very few guys stay level headed.

[NBAGOAT]

CP3's playstyle actually hurt Blake individually from ever truly peaking, which nobody wants to acknowledge. Blake at his absolute peak was the 3rd in MVP race behind peak KD+Lebron when CP3 went down 19 games. He went to a STUPID level. Then in the 2015 playoffs, including a blazing start vs Houston when CP3 missed the first few games of that series. Blake was at his best as our Point Forward with the ball in his hands. As great as CP3 is, he didn't make Blake better at all.

like you I watched a lot of clippers game. I wouldnt say cp3 didnt make blake better but yes they didnt have great synergy like cp3 and dj. the team wasnt really well built around blake. He's a point forward type almost who needs the ball and spacing. a center who could space and a less ball dominant pg who could again space the floor would be far better compliments(say horford and lowry to replace cp3 and dj).

tbf teams dont like building their lineups around those guys unless his name is lebron. It's also the reason the clips could win at a 50+ win pace even without him in 17 and 18 they didnt build a team tailored to his strengths but at the same time he's not the easiest type of star to build around. Webber who you mentioned in another comment is a decent comparison(lot better than kemp) with some similarities in playstyle and injury issues. However like blake, sacramento ran pretty smoothly even when he missed games.

[PeroAntic]

Blake and CP3 didnt go all the way for only one reason: badly timed injuries.

[Uncle Drew]

Blake and CP3 didnt go all the way for only one reason: badly timed injuries.

And what season(s) would that be?