NBA Playoffs

[superjohn]

Statistically Zeke isn't even that close to Chris Paul. Nor is Westbrook (who I find to be one of the most overrated players ever, but that's a different subject).

As I pointed out I'm not a big stats guy but how is Zeke and Westbrook not even close to Paul on stats?

 

[superjohn]

The answer to the question of what it would look like if Geno coached elite men has been answered. It would look like Brad Stevens coaching the Celtics. And, really, we have already seen this. It was/is the Popavich coached Spurs. These guys can be great players with mediocre coaches but they are better when coached by someone that pays attention to the little things and the intangibles. It can and does make a difference no matter how athletic the players are.

This is the kind of stuff that can make it embarrassing being a UConn fan.

 

[UConnStats]

As I pointed out I'm not a big stats guy but how is Zeke and Westbrook not even close to Paul on stats?

Because Chris Paul’s TS% and AST:TO are way better. Paul is insanely efficient.

 

[intlzncster]

Statistically Zeke isn't even that close to Chris Paul. Nor is Westbrook (who I find to be one of the most overrated players ever, but that's a different subject).

Idk about "ever", but Westbrook is overrated simply because he's not at his best as a 'team player'. His signature skill is taking over basketball games all by himself. He's one of the best I've ever seen at it. But playing an entire game within a team structure doesn't seem to maximize that particular skill.

 

[intlzncster]

What about all the clinching games Thomas choked in I mentioned?

Even the best fail. Nor did I say he was perfect and/or best ever.

 

[champs99and04]

I have no dog in this fight, but I don't share the opinion that Chris Paul isn't a winner. I touched on this briefly earlier in the thread when I was defending Redick, but people overstate how disappointing those Clipper teams were. They were a top heavy team that battled injuries virtually every season in a loaded conference. Go through the game logs and tell me where he's at fault - even in the final three games of the Houston collapse he averaged 26 and 10 on 51/35/94 splits. Sure he was bad in game 7 against Utah last year, he also put in 29 and 8 on the road in game six to keep them alive. Look at what he's done in key games alone:

2013 - 28 and 8 (11 of 16 from the field) in game six loss to Memphis

2014 - 23 and 12 against OKC, shooting 51% from the field and 46% from three on the series. Despite his critical blunder in game five, OKC was better and should have won. The previous round against Golden State he holds Steph in check and goes for 22 and 14 in a game seven win.

2015 - 26 and 10 (9-20) in game seven loss @ Houston. Prior round he goes for 27 and 6 (9 for 13) against defending champs in an epic game seven.

2016 - Hurt

All the guy has done his entire career is consistently engineer top five NBA teams. Unfortunately for him, he plays in a league where there isn't as much variance in playoff results as there is in other sports. If the worst thing you can say about him is that he's not as good as LeBron or Durant, I think he's still in pretty good company.

 

[Paesano]

This is the kind of stuff that can make it embarrassing being a UConn fan.

Only if you are insecure.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

This is the kind of stuff that can make it embarrassing being a UConn fan.

Take quakes about the NBA from people who don't watch the NBA are what make the Boneyard the Boneyard.

 

[MadDogRevival]

This is the kind of stuff that can make it embarrassing being a UConn fan.

Warning. Snowflake embarrassment alert. Warning.

 

[auror]

I find people who weren't old enough to watch or just didn't watch get so hung up on numbers (at least he finally posted the right numbers). It's pretty hard to believe anyone who watched them both during their careers and in big playoff games could come away saying Paul is the better player. The Clippers were routinely one of the favorites going into the season and all they ever managed was making the second round. They had one of the all-time playoff chokes blowing it to a nothing Rockets team. Paul's numbers may have been good I'm not even going to look it up because I know what I saw. Clippers were destroying them and had the series won before giving it all away, your job as a point guard is to not let that happen. Paul is a great player but there is no getting around that his teams didn't live up to expectations when the lights were the brightest, it's a team game but when you are the point guard and the best player a lot of the blame is going to fall at your feet, as it should. Since Auror loves stats so much, he should be touting Westbrook, Harden, and Tiny Archibald over Paul and Thomas.

I'm not as young as you think. Your memory isn't as good as you think (nor is mine).

The fallacy of declaring anyone who happened to win when they had more talent as more clutch or having that "it" factor is preposterous. There's a reason the Pistons never won until Hall of Famers Dumars and Rodman came into their own (other than Bird's back) and they traded for Aguirre. Zeke was even slightly on the downslope during their Finals years, but they had their best teams. Thomas, Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer, and Dantley/Aguirre ALL made multiple All-Star games. 5 guys on that team! Plus you could argue Vinnie Johnson was better than some of those guys, and Mahorn/Salley were really good on defense that year, too. They were loaded.

Much more loaded than any Chris Paul team has been.. so he's a disappointment despite playing well in the playoffs and Thomas is obviously a better PG historically. Thanks GM Doc! The Clippers 4th best player, Redick has a strong similarity score to the Piston's 6th best (or so), Vinnie Johnson.

 

[superjohn]

Because Chris Paul’s TS% and AST:TO are way better. Paul is insanely efficient.

Paul's assist to turnover is way better and he shoots like 3% better on field goals and is a better ft shooter but shoots way less of them than Paul, so that cancels out Westbrook however averages way more points and gets double the rebounds Paul gets. I don't like Westbrook but it's pretty silly to say Paul's stats are a lot better when they're not. Westbrook obviously is a way more high risk player but with that comes the reward, he averaged a triple double the past two seasons. Paul's assist turnover rate and shooting percentage is also better than his teammate Harden. You think he's better than him too? I don't like Westbrook or Harden but you're not going to find many people who think Chris Paul is better than them right now.

 

[Yardigan]

You have to wonder about LeBron post "neck" injury. He made a couple nice passes and drives, but I'm not convinced he didn't suffer a concussion.

Other than that, the Cavs were 7/14 from 3 in the first half and the Celtics locked it down in the 2nd (3/17), forced some turnovers and misses, got out in transition, and when
they weren't in transition, they broke their man off the dribble and got into the paint. Cavs 1v1 D is garbage. Celtics were taking easier shots on almost every possession.

Marcus Smart gets the game ball though, He made every play they needed him to when the game was close.

Just catching up on this thread, but agree re: LeBron. As soon as it happened I thought "concussion."

Was "interesting" to hear Lue talk about the C's "gooning it up"...when his guy Smith had the biggest goon play out of either game so far.

 

[Yardigan]

I don't know why you keep posting fake playoff career averages for Chris Paul and Isiah Thomas. Paul's playoff averages- 21.5 ppg, 9 assists, and 4.9 rebs. Isiah Thomas playoff averages. 20.4 ppg, 8.9, assists, and 4.7 rebs.

No matter how you slice it, Chris Paul just isn't going to stack up to Zeke as a playoff performer. Isiah was going through yearly playoff wars against Bird and Jordan. I watched him score 16 points in 90 seconds at the end of the playpff game against the Knicks. I watched him drop 25 in the third quarter in the NBA finals against the Lakers on one ankle. I can't stand Isiah but he was a beast. Heart and Soul of the Pistons and brought them 2 championships.

I'll just assume you are a teenager and never watched Isiah. This really shouldn't be a hill you choose to die on.

I never liked Zeke at all either...he was the 'enemy', but to say Chris Paul is anywhere near as good a playoff performer...not sure how one does that....

 

[auror]

I got annoyed by "it factor", "clutch", and "memorable moments" arguments for Isiah vs. the "choker" accusations for Paul.

So I grabbed the game logs for every potential clinching game (for their own team or opponent) in the playoffs for both Isiah or Paul. The results are not shocking to me:

Isiah Thomas

 

[auror]

Chris Paul

Their stats are mostly quite close. Basically the same amount of points and steals. But Paul shot the ball significantly better (and this is regular FG% not eFG% so Paul is actually penalized by taking more lower % 3-pointers) from the field and line, grabbed half a rebound more per game, assisted on half a shot more per game, and committed markedly fewer turnovers. Once again, there is no area that Thomas surpassed Paul.

That 42% shooting from Zeke is pretty atrocious.

@superjohn @intlzncster @Yardigan @Mr. French

 

[intlzncster]

Chris Paul

Their stats are mostly quite close. Basically the same amount of points and steals. But Paul shot the ball significantly better (and this is regular FG% not eFG% so Paul is actually penalized by taking more lower % 3-pointers) from the field and line, grabbed half a rebound more per game, assisted on half a shot more per game, and committed markedly fewer turnovers. Once again, there is no area that Thomas surpassed Paul.

That 42% shooting from Zeke is pretty atrocious.

@superjohn @intlzncster @Yardigan @Mr. French

Is it easy to get all these numbers from an era adjusted standpoint? I'd be curious.

 

[superjohn]

I never liked Zeke at all either...he was the 'enemy', but to say Chris Paul is anywhere near as good a playoff performer...not sure how one does that....

It's more understandable if you never watched the games and are just relying on numbers you read on a computer screen.

 

[auror]

Is it easy to get all these numbers from an era adjusted standpoint? I'd be curious.

No, I don't think so. Kevin Pelton did an article (ESPN Insider unfortunately don't have access anymore) about adjusting for era that basically amounted to the current era being 12% tougher than Jordan's era. However, Jordan's era was actually slightly weaker than the previous era due to the expansion teams. I'd guess this current era is only slightly tougher than Isiah's era. Most of the current era advantage comes from the widening talent pool due to internationals. Only one person's crack at it anyways, but would favor Paul.

If you just mean to adjust for pace of the league and not league quality, the league was faster in the 80s, so Isiah's rate stats would be a bit inflated if we compared both player's stats to league average. Modern era is starting to creep back up, but early Paul's career was pretty slow.

 

[Rocktheworld]

It's more understandable if you never watched the games and are just relying on numbers you read on a computer screen.

Statistical facts don't care about your feelings

 

[superjohn]

Statistical facts don't care about your feelings

Says another guy who never watched the games. Isiah was facing all-time teams in the Celtics, Bulls, and Lakers in Eastern Conference finals and the finals. Paul was losing in the first and second round to Memphis, Houston, and Utah.

 

[Rocktheworld]

Says another guy who never watched the games.

Saying it over and over again makes it no less fallacious

Isiah was facing all-time teams in the Celtics, Bulls, and Lakers in Eastern Conference finals and the finals. Paul was losing in the first and second round to Memphis, Houston, and Utah.

Are you purposely ignoring the "clinching game" stats that have been posted?

 

[superjohn]

Saying it over and over again makes it no less facile


Are you purposely ignoring the "clinching game" stats that have been posted?

Are you purposely ignoring you never watched Thomas play and that Thomas was playing way better teams and won multiple championships?

 

[auror]

Saying it over and over again makes it no less fallacious

Are you purposely ignoring the "clinching game" stats that have been posted?

He's trying blatantly to ignore the fact that the larger worldwide player pool, increased interest, more resources, better/more coaching and training, and yes the influence of statistics on strategy have actually led to a higher quality of basketball in the modern "LeBron era". And that very good teams existed in all eras, and that, for example, Paul beat the Spurs and the Warriors.

Of course the best way to compare across eras is to use the in-era subjective awards, given out by those who, you know, watched the games closer than he did. But those show that in the years the Pistons won their championships, Joe Dumars made an All-NBA (and then the next year, too), but Thomas didn't make any of the teams. But that undermines his whole idea that Thomas beat all these incredible teams by himself since winning a playoff series is an individual accomplishment.. Plus, Paul has him handily beat in the awards area anyways so he'll ignore that, too.

 

[superjohn]

He's trying blatantly to ignore the fact that the larger worldwide player pool, increased interest, more resources, better/more coaching and training, and yes the influence of statistics on strategy have actually led to a higher quality of basketball in the modern "LeBron era". And that very good teams existed in all eras, and that, for example, Paul beat the Spurs and the Warriors.

Of course the best way to compare across eras is to use the in-era subjective awards, given out by those who, you know, watched the games closer than he did. But those show that in the years the Pistons won their championships, Joe Dumars made an All-NBA (and then the next year, too), but Thomas didn't make any of the teams. But that undermines his whole idea that Thomas beat all these incredible teams by himself since winning a playoff series is an individual accomplishment.. Plus, Paul has him handily beat in the awards area anyways so he'll ignore that, too.

Wow, just wow. I'm checking out.

I'll leave you and veggie boy to talk about how players are better than other players you've never seen play.

 

[Dogdeacon]

I understand the Process.

OT Sam Hinkie

But if you look at the chart in that post, you see the expected value of top 5 picks. It's massively higher than any other place. You want to get more whacks, but specifically whacks in the top 5. The Celtics need marginal improvement upon already elite players, not just solid rotation players.

NBA Draft Analysis -- Expected value of a pick
A top 5 pick gives you a 60% chance at a star.

Of the 5 first round picks they have the next couple years, 2 of them have a chance to be in the top 5. My suggestion was to trade 1 of those potentials (and remember none are guaranteed to land there, just look at the Brooklyn pick which will likely be #8) plus a couple weaker firsts for a guaranteed top 5 this year. As it is, pick #30 for the next couple years for the Celtics will give a 5%/10% chance of star/solid rotation piece, which will be their own pick range for the forseeable future. Almost worthless.

As an aside, it's way too early to say Fultz/Lonzo are busts. You did add a qualifier about so far, but these guys are so young. Tatum/Mitchell are the anomalies, not those 2. Lonzo's numbers aren't that far off from Kemba's rookie year. And just look at Embiid. You can miss your rookie (and sophomore!) years and still be great.

Hold your evaluation on Embid - hopefully he’s great as he was /showed this year but he’s an average pick so far having played a little over 1 full season in 4yrs since he’s been drafted. He’s always been rewarded more for what he could be than what he is.

Equallly funny in same thread people worried about Irving’s injury where he’s won a championship and played prob 4-5 times the nba games.

I just think on draft picks the Celtics have the top guys in Irving & Hayward coming back & given what Stevens has done with far less that should be plenty. They’ve done well with Baynes & Theis (even Monroe to lesser extent) pickups, so pretty reasonable to expect a good PFC free agent pickup in future if that’s their one missing piece.

= don’t trade assets or picks.