PDA

View Full Version : Blind taste test: which point guard would you rather have?



JasonJohnHorn
08-18-2014, 04:08 PM
Point guard X, or point guard Z?

The are both playing on competitive playoff teams and both getting averaging 36 minutes a game, and both handling the overwhelming bulk of the ball handling duties when they are on the court.

Here are their stats.


POINT GUARD X (Age 20-28)

Career averages
Percentages FG%: .472 3PT%: .357 FT%: .857 TS%: 5.75

PPG: 18.6 APG: 9.8 TO 2.4 A/TO Ratio: 4.1 SPG: 2.4 RPG: 4.4 PF: 2.5

PER36

PPG: 18.4 APG: 9.8 TO 2.4 A/TO Ratio: 4.1 SPG: 2.4 RPG: 4.3 PF: 2.4

PER 100 Possesions:

PPG: 27.2 APG: 14.5 TO 3.5 A/TO Ratio: 4.1 SPG: 3.5 RPG: 6.4 PF: 3.6



POINT GUARD Z (Age 20-32)

Career averages

Percentages FG%: .452 3PT%: .290 FT%: .759 TS%: 5.16

PPG: 19.2 APG: 9.3 TO 3.8 A/TO Ratio: 2.4 SPG: 1.9 RPG: 3.6 PF: 3.0

PER36

PPG: 19.1 APG: 9.2 TO 3.7 A/TO Ratio: 2.4 SPG: 1.9 RPG: 3.5 PF: 3.0

PER 100 Possesions:

PPG: 25.7 APG: 12.4 TO 5.0 A/TO Ratio: 2.4 SPG: 2.5 RPG: 4.7 PF: 4.1

SPURSFAN1
08-18-2014, 04:09 PM
Is one playing on a championship team? Those players sacrifice stats.

JasonJohnHorn
08-18-2014, 04:11 PM
Is one playing on a championship team? Those players sacrifice stats.

The are both playing on competitive playoff teams and both getting averaging 36 minutes a game, and both handling the overwhelming bulk of the ball handling duties when they are on the court.

SPURSFAN1
08-18-2014, 04:13 PM
The are both playing on competitive playoff teams and both getting averaging 36 minutes a game, and both handling the overwhelming bulk of the ball handling duties when they are on the court.

Is one a 2 round bust and is the other one on a championship team?
I pick tony parker.

savvy1803
08-18-2014, 04:18 PM
Point guard X, or point guard Z?

The are both playing on competitive playoff teams and both getting averaging 36 minutes a game, and both handling the overwhelming bulk of the ball handling duties when they are on the court.

Here are their stats.


POINT GUARD X (Age 20-28)

Career averages
Percentages FG%: .472 3PT%: .357 FT%: .857 TS%: 5.75

PPG: 18.6 APG: 9.8 TO 2.4 A/TO Ratio: 4.1 SPG: 2.4 RPG: 4.4 PF: 2.5

PER36

PPG: 18.4 APG: 9.8 TO 2.4 A/TO Ratio: 4.1 SPG: 2.4 RPG: 4.3 PF: 2.4

PER 100 Possesions:

PPG: 27.2 APG: 14.5 TO 3.5 A/TO Ratio: 4.1 SPG: 3.5 RPG: 6.4 PF: 3.6



POINT GUARD Z (Age 20-32)

Career averages

Percentages FG%: .452 3PT%: .290 FT%: .759 TS%: 5.16

PPG: 19.2 APG: 9.3 TO 3.8 A/TO Ratio: 2.4 SPG: 1.9 RPG: 3.6 PF: 3.0

PER36

PPG: 19.1 APG: 9.2 TO 3.7 A/TO Ratio: 2.4 SPG: 1.9 RPG: 3.5 PF: 3.0

PER 100 Possesions:

PPG: 25.7 APG: 12.4 TO 5.0 A/TO Ratio: 2.4 SPG: 2.5 RPG: 4.7 PF: 4.1

Which one won a championship or at least made a championship finals ?

SPURSFAN1
08-18-2014, 04:27 PM
Also tony played on slow paced teams. 25ppg is great on a 80ppg team while 25ppg might not be as good on a 100ppg team. That's just an example.

sixers247
08-18-2014, 04:30 PM
So do you think Derek Fisher is top three all time if rings count so much?

Sandman
08-18-2014, 04:32 PM
Magic Johnson and Chris Paul?

SPURSFAN1
08-18-2014, 04:33 PM
So do you think Derek Fisher is top three all time if rings count so much?

No I don't. Apparently the lakers didn't think so either. :laugh2:

JasonJohnHorn
08-18-2014, 04:38 PM
Which one won a championship or at least made a championship finals ?

Neither player had a choice in how deep the teams they played with were, so I don't think it's fair to compare ring count, but both players have made their teams significantly better.

Player X led a team from a .390 winning percentage to a .666 winning percentage in one year, and in two season helped them improve from 32 win to 56, but has not won a championship.

Player Z has won a championship, but had a much deeper team that featured five current, past or future All-Stars (all near or in their prime), two rebounding champions, and two All-Defensive first team player and All-NBA players and a two time DPOY. Player X only has one other current All-Star on his team and no All-Defensive team players other than himself.

kingsdelez24
08-18-2014, 04:45 PM
CP3 and Magic

Kemptostay
08-18-2014, 04:47 PM
One beat Magic Johnson in an NBA Finals, the other lost to Westbrook in a second round

savvy1803
08-18-2014, 04:48 PM
Neither player had a choice in how deep the teams they played with were, so I don't think it's fair to compare ring count, but both players have made their teams significantly better.

Player X led a team from a .390 winning percentage to a .666 winning percentage in one year, and in two season helped them improve from 32 win to 56, but has not won a championship.

Player Z has won a championship, but had a much deeper team that featured five current, past or future All-Stars (all near or in their prime), two rebounding champions, and two All-Defensive first team player and All-NBA players and a two time DPOY. Player X only has one other current All-Star on his team and no All-Defensive team players other than himself.

Without knowing actual ages of players or injury and or previous health concerns Jason i would always lean towards the proven winner as he has taken himself and his stats to the highest level possible and won with them . I feel championship experience and the ability to actually do it does matter , others may feel differently and i'm cool with that

SPURSFAN1
08-18-2014, 04:50 PM
One beat Magic Johnson in an NBA Finals, the other lost to Westbrook in a second round

Cherry pop'ed. :cheers:

D_Rose1118
08-18-2014, 04:59 PM
One beat Magic Johnson in an NBA Finals, the other lost to Westbrook in a second round

exactly

anyone saying cp3 could hop on the pistons and win those titles is being foolish
Isiah was the engine for that team and its playing style

I don't think you could even throw in Magic and Stockton and get the same result
the pistons played such a unique brand of basketball that Isiah was really the only PG you could could mold into that style

also CP3 now has no more excuses...
first it was team but he had the coach of the year in Scott
then it was team and the coach
then he got dealt to the Clippers and his team was almost there but VDN was awful(as a Bulls fan, pretty justifiable)
now he has the coach, the team and heck even a new owner.. lets see if he can leave the 2nd round, I'm not even saying win the title, just give me something Westbrook, Rose, Williams, Parker and Nash have all done.
all the greats have done it with no excuses, they found a way, that's what makes them great. they won, the ultimate end goal of all these stats.

JasonJohnHorn
08-18-2014, 05:02 PM
One beat Magic Johnson in an NBA Finals, the other lost to Westbrook in a second round

Why don't you provide the entire context.

when playing on a team featuring five current, future or former All-Stars, one managed to beat a team that was starting a 40-year-old at center.

The other, with only one other All-Star, lost to a team with an MVP (Kevin Durant) and All-Star (Westbrook) and an All-Defensive team player (Ibaka).

SPURSFAN1
08-18-2014, 05:04 PM
Why don't you provide the entire context.

when playing on a team featuring five current, future or former All-Stars, one managed to beat a team that was starting a 40-year-old at center.

The other, with only one other All-Star, lost to a team with an MVP (Kevin Durant) and All-Star (Westbrook) and an All-Defensive team player (Ibaka).

And they lost too. Lol.

Goose17
08-18-2014, 06:24 PM
Point guard X

Cal827
08-18-2014, 06:28 PM
Why don't you provide the entire context.

when playing on a team featuring five current, future or former All-Stars, one managed to beat a team that was starting a 40-year-old at center.

The other, with only one other All-Star, lost to a team with an MVP (Kevin Durant) and All-Star (Westbrook) and an All-Defensive team player (Ibaka).

Lol, I'm sorry, but the Clippers are loaded. There's no excuse for Paul if he can't get to at least one finals (yet alone one championship) with these Clipper teams. He's pretty much like another Carmelo Anthony... hasn't really proven that he could win when it counts... but at least Melo made one conference finals lol

Goose17
08-18-2014, 06:31 PM
Lol, I'm sorry, but the Clippers are loaded. There's no excuse for Paul if he can't get to at least one finals (yet alone one championship) with these Clipper teams. He's pretty much like another Carmelo Anthony... hasn't really proven that he could win when it counts... but at least Melo made one conference finals lol

Yeah but Melos in the East.

Clippers would have made the last couple of conference finals out East easily.

kingsdelez24
08-18-2014, 06:32 PM
Why don't you provide the entire context.

when playing on a team featuring five current, future or former All-Stars, one managed to beat a team that was starting a 40-year-old at center.

The other, with only one other All-Star, lost to a team with an MVP (Kevin Durant) and All-Star (Westbrook) and an All-Defensive team player (Ibaka).

Lol, I'm sorry, but the Clippers are loaded. There's no excuse for Paul if he can't get to at least one finals (yet alone one championship) with these Clipper teams. He's pretty much like another Carmelo Anthony... hasn't really proven that he could win when it counts... but at least Melo made one conference finals lol

They just need Matt Barnes and Jared Dudley to do the DBZ fusion dance and then they'll have themselves a legit small forward

JasonJohnHorn
08-18-2014, 06:57 PM
Lol, I'm sorry, but the Clippers are loaded. There's no excuse for Paul if he can't get to at least one finals (yet alone one championship) with these Clipper teams. He's pretty much like another Carmelo Anthony... hasn't really proven that he could win when it counts... but at least Melo made one conference finals lol


Loaded? Becaue Jamal Crawford is as good as Joe Dumars? And Reddick is as good as Vinnie Johnson? And DaJ is as good as Rodman? and Barnes is as good as Mark Aguirre? And Dudley is as good as Laimbeer?

Right.

Isiah had a BOAT load of great player to work with. Chris Paul had Blake.

You give Paul a team with a rebounding champion that can shoot threes like Laimbeer, and a 2X DPOY in Rodman, and a shooter like Dumars, and elite scorers like Aguirre and Johnson, and throw in some big bodies like Edwards and MaHorn and Salley. Then we are talking apples and apples, but if you are going to pretend that DaJ, Barnes, Crawford and Reddick are as talented as that Pistons' team, then you have NO clue about basketball.

NYKalltheway
08-18-2014, 07:04 PM
don't they have a stats subforum for these not-really-basketball discussions?

nickdymez
08-18-2014, 07:14 PM
This thread furthers my point that people who rely on advanced stats, don't have to know basketball AT ALL

Goose17
08-18-2014, 07:20 PM
This thread furthers my point that people who rely on advanced stats, don't have to know basketball AT ALL

And people who dismiss stats entirely don't know as much as they think they do.

Ignorance is ignorance either way.

nickdymez
08-18-2014, 07:21 PM
And people who dismiss stats entirely don't know as much as they think they do.

Ignorance is ignorance either way.
Ok chief. Where in this post did I say that I dismiss stats? I looked again and couldn't find that. But this threads reminds me of a lot of posters on here who claim "player A" is automatically better than "player B" because of stats.

Goose17
08-18-2014, 07:31 PM
Ok chief. Where in this post did I say that I dismiss stats? I looked again and couldn't find that. But this threads reminds me of a lot of posters on here who claim "player A" is automatically better than "player B" because of stats.

I didn't say you dismiss stats. Just stating a fact.

nickdymez
08-18-2014, 07:32 PM
I didn't say you dismiss stats. Just stating a fact.
Roger that

SPURSFAN1
08-18-2014, 07:33 PM
Stats and context are my 2 favorite things in discussing players or teams.

Cal827
08-18-2014, 07:44 PM
Loaded? Becaue Jamal Crawford is as good as Joe Dumars? And Reddick is as good as Vinnie Johnson? And DaJ is as good as Rodman? and Barnes is as good as Mark Aguirre? And Dudley is as good as Laimbeer?

Right.

Isiah had a BOAT load of great player to work with. Chris Paul had Blake.

You give Paul a team with a rebounding champion that can shoot threes like Laimbeer, and a 2X DPOY in Rodman, and a shooter like Dumars, and elite scorers like Aguirre and Johnson, and throw in some big bodies like Edwards and MaHorn and Salley. Then we are talking apples and apples, but if you are going to pretend that DaJ, Barnes, Crawford and Reddick are as talented as that Pistons' team, then you have NO clue about basketball.

Oh, I'm not comparing the two players. That would be incredibly dumb lol. Isiah had a lot of talent around him (for some reason I initially thought Magic lol) . I can't really think of a team with as much talent 1 through 10 as LAC right now.

I mean for right now, how Paul is considered this great superstar. I only have two Superstars right now, that's LBJ and Durant.

Cal827
08-18-2014, 07:47 PM
Yeah but Melos in the East.

Clippers would have made the last couple of conference finals out East easily.

Melo made the WCF when he was on Denver.

and to be fair, pretty much 1-8 in the West would make it to the ECF :laugh:

Goose17
08-18-2014, 07:51 PM
Melo made the WCF when he was on Denver.

and to be fair, pretty much 1-8 in the West would make it to the ECF :laugh:

LOL you're totally right. For some reason I was thinking that the Knicks made it during their recent 51 season. Forgot they got bounced in the semis.

Hawkeye15
08-18-2014, 09:25 PM
CP3 over Zeke for me.

FlashBolt
08-18-2014, 09:37 PM
Shows how little people know. Detroit beat a very weak LAL team in which we saw KAJ near retirement (clearly finished), Byron Scott was injured, and Magic Johnson pulled his hamstring playing just very few minutes.. He even missed a Finals game. So if you don't know what you're talking about, stop being a zealot and use some real arguments. Also, Portland has NO business being in that NBA Finals. They were a good team but clearly not great like Detroit was. Let's not forget, Isiah's Pistons also BEAT Jordan. CP3 statistically and advanced wise is a top 5 PG hands down. Advanced metrics prove he's the best PG in PER/WS. The same rating system that has Jordan as the GOAT. So please, enlighten me on how advanced statistics mean nothing. It means SOMETHING if the undisputed GOAT is Jordan and PER/WS also happens to be under his belt as well.

Cal827
08-18-2014, 09:55 PM
Shows how little people know. Detroit beat a very weak LAL team in which we saw KAJ near retirement (clearly finished), Byron Scott was injured, and Magic Johnson pulled his hamstring playing just very few minutes.. He even missed a Finals game. So if you don't know what you're talking about, stop being a zealot and use some real arguments. Also, Portland has NO business being in that NBA Finals. They were a good team but clearly not great like Detroit was. Let's not forget, Isiah's Pistons also BEAT Jordan. CP3 statistically and advanced wise is a top 5 PG hands down. Advanced metrics prove he's the best PG in PER/WS. The same rating system that has Jordan as the GOAT. So please, enlighten me on how advanced statistics mean nothing. It means SOMETHING if the undisputed GOAT is Jordan and PER/WS also happens to be under his belt as well.

LOL, you are aware that at the time, the Blazers made the finals twice in 3 years, and in the year they didn't, they were beaten by the Lakers in the WCF.... I wouldn't exactly say that they were a fluke finals team.

Jarvo
08-19-2014, 03:33 AM
Lol, I'm sorry, but the Clippers are loaded. There's no excuse for Paul if he can't get to at least one finals (yet alone one championship) with these Clipper teams. He's pretty much like another Carmelo Anthony... hasn't really proven that he could win when it counts... but at least Melo made one conference finals lol

This, If the so called "Best PG" can't win a title with the so called "Best PF" in the NBA then something is up, The team is damn good and have good role players along with a Top 3-5 coach. If he chokes or come up short again what other excuse can you give this guy for not making it to The Finals?

Raidaz4Life
08-19-2014, 03:43 AM
Player X hands down

jerellh528
08-19-2014, 03:58 AM
I can't just blindly judge off stats. There's so much more that goes into basketball.

basketfan4life
08-19-2014, 06:49 AM
Loaded? Becaue Jamal Crawford is as good as Joe Dumars? And Reddick is as good as Vinnie Johnson? And DaJ is as good as Rodman? and Barnes is as good as Mark Aguirre? And Dudley is as good as Laimbeer?

Right.

Isiah had a BOAT load of great player to work with. Chris Paul had Blake.

You give Paul a team with a rebounding champion that can shoot threes like Laimbeer, and a 2X DPOY in Rodman, and a shooter like Dumars, and elite scorers like Aguirre and Johnson, and throw in some big bodies like Edwards and MaHorn and Salley. Then we are talking apples and apples, but if you are going to pretend that DaJ, Barnes, Crawford and Reddick are as talented as that Pistons' team, then you have NO clue about basketball.

Sounds like you are listing all the players on that pistons teams, as great players, because they won. But when it comes to Zeke, you are downgrading him for winning and overrating paul for his stats, i don't know what you are doing honestly.

I mean, i love paul and his abilities and his heart. But let the guy to win his way to legend status please. You guys are making people hate players. Yes i take Zeke over Paul any day of the week for now. If Paul proves to the world that he can win as the man than i can put him over Zeke.

Why should i give a damn to Paul's regular stats or metrics when they don't equal to winning. You guys are making it sound like these guys play for better individual stats but they actually play for winning. Player X having better stats than player Z means that he has better stats, not that he is the better player automatically. I hope Paul wins one before you guys make people hate him and we can continue to love him.

sammyvine
08-19-2014, 06:58 AM
CP3 must be the most cuddled star in basketball history

JasonJohnHorn
08-19-2014, 10:15 AM
Sounds like you are listing all the players on that pistons teams, as great players, because they won. But when it comes to Zeke, you are downgrading him for winning and overrating paul for his stats, i don't know what you are doing honestly.

It's not a question of downgrading the winning, it is a question of contextualizing it. If people dismiss what CP3 does on the court but fail to take into account the level of talent he plays with, and then say Thomas is better because he won, but fail to consider that he player with much better players, then the argument is flawed because you are using controlled samples.

Thomas won with Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer Aguirre (All-Star players) and Vinnie Johnson, John Salley, Rick MaHorn and James Edwards (all quality starter-caliber players in the NBA, most of whom came off the bench for Detroit).

I'm not dismissing Thomas's accomplishments, I'm simply not ignoring the fact that he played with a more talented team.

You put CP3 on those Bad Boy teams and they are more dominant.

JasonJohnHorn
08-19-2014, 10:16 AM
CP3 must be the most cuddled star in basketball history


Are you suggesting he likes to cuddle?

basketfan4life
08-19-2014, 10:29 AM
It's not a question of downgrading the winning, it is a question of contextualizing it. If people dismiss what CP3 does on the court but fail to take into account the level of talent he plays with, and then say Thomas is better because he won, but fail to consider that he player with much better players, then the argument is flawed because you are using controlled samples.

Thomas won with Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer Aguirre (All-Star players) and Vinnie Johnson, John Salley, Rick MaHorn and James Edwards (all quality starter-caliber players in the NBA, most of whom came off the bench for Detroit).

I'm not dismissing Thomas's accomplishments, I'm simply not ignoring the fact that he played with a more talented team.

You put CP3 on those Bad Boy teams and they are more dominant.

There is no such sure thing. And it's nice that you ignore rest of my post.

Jarvo
08-19-2014, 11:53 AM
It's not a question of downgrading the winning, it is a question of contextualizing it. If people dismiss what CP3 does on the court but fail to take into account the level of talent he plays with, and then say Thomas is better because he won, but fail to consider that he player with much better players, then the argument is flawed because you are using controlled samples.

Thomas won with Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer Aguirre (All-Star players) and Vinnie Johnson, John Salley, Rick MaHorn and James Edwards (all quality starter-caliber players in the NBA, most of whom came off the bench for Detroit).

I'm not dismissing Thomas's accomplishments, I'm simply not ignoring the fact that he played with a more talented team.

You put CP3 on those Bad Boy teams and they are more dominant.

Nah, CP3 flops way too much and cry almost after every call. He doesnt have Zekes heart at all.

albertajaysfan
08-19-2014, 12:34 PM
Shows how little people know. Detroit beat a very weak LAL team in which we saw KAJ near retirement (clearly finished), Byron Scott was injured, and Magic Johnson pulled his hamstring playing just very few minutes.. He even missed a Finals game. So if you don't know what you're talking about, stop being a zealot and use some real arguments. Also, Portland has NO business being in that NBA Finals. They were a good team but clearly not great like Detroit was. Let's not forget, Isiah's Pistons also BEAT Jordan. CP3 statistically and advanced wise is a top 5 PG hands down. Advanced metrics prove he's the best PG in PER/WS. The same rating system that has Jordan as the GOAT. So please, enlighten me on how advanced statistics mean nothing. It means SOMETHING if the undisputed GOAT is Jordan and PER/WS also happens to be under his belt as well.

There is one important flaw in your argument. When looking at the stats out of context you are right. However when you put them into context the picture changes.

Jordan you put his stats in context and his accomplishments are damn impressive. MVPs, FMVPs, etc. 6-0 in the Finals, which is pretty ridiculous.

Paul, never made it out of the second round.

As other posters have said you need both to properly evaluate a player.

Chronz
08-19-2014, 12:54 PM
Lol, I'm sorry, but the Clippers are loaded. There's no excuse for Paul if he can't get to at least one finals (yet alone one championship) with these Clipper teams. He's pretty much like another Carmelo Anthony... hasn't really proven that he could win when it counts... but at least Melo made one conference finals lol
They're loaded but the teams they are facing are even more loaded. CP3 did choke in that 1 game tho, in that series we saw the extreme with him, he was totally clueless in the final minutes 1 game but absolutely perfect that one game where he put the Thunder away before the 4th even began.

Goose17
08-19-2014, 01:04 PM
Are you suggesting he likes to cuddle?

Or he's just very cuddly? I would have put my money on Steph or Al Jefferson.

savvy1803
08-19-2014, 01:29 PM
Sounds like you are listing all the players on that pistons teams, as great players, because they won. But when it comes to Zeke, you are downgrading him for winning and overrating paul for his stats, i don't know what you are doing honestly.

I mean, i love paul and his abilities and his heart. But let the guy to win his way to legend status please. You guys are making people hate players. Yes i take Zeke over Paul any day of the week for now. If Paul proves to the world that he can win as the man than i can put him over Zeke.

Why should i give a damn to Paul's regular stats or metrics when they don't equal to winning. You guys are making it sound like these guys play for better individual stats but they actually play for winning. Player X having better stats than player Z means that he has better stats, not that he is the better player automatically. I hope Paul wins one before you guys make people hate him and we can continue to love him.

Great post .

NYKnickFanatic
08-19-2014, 01:39 PM
Neither.

Chronz
08-19-2014, 01:48 PM
Sounds like you are listing all the players on that pistons teams, as great players, because they won. But when it comes to Zeke, you are downgrading him for winning and overrating paul for his stats, i don't know what you are doing honestly.
I dont see how you got that impression.


I mean, i love paul and his abilities and his heart. But let the guy to win his way to legend status please. You guys are making people hate players. Yes i take Zeke over Paul any day of the week for now. If Paul proves to the world that he can win as the man than i can put him over Zeke.
The way I look at it is, theres a question of whos had the greater career and whos the greater player. Winning matters more to a career legacy, but if you're asking me who I want leading my team between 2 players, Im going to focus more on the things those players can actually control, ask yourself, can a player control his teams destiny more than he can control his own individual level of play?


Why should i give a damn to Paul's regular stats or metrics when they don't equal to winning.
Because nothing 1 player does equals winning, winning a group effort from the TEAM.


You guys are making it sound like these guys play for better individual stats but they actually play for winning. Player X having better stats than player Z means that he has better stats, not that he is the better player automatically.
Everything you said here is true, but we measure how they won with the aid of stats.

Put it this way, Isiah's best days were clearly in his youth but they won titles in his later age. Same thing happened with KG, did you really need to see KG win a title to know he could? He just needed the right environment right. So what makes a player stand out as someone who cant win? Havent we already seen LOTS of inferior players win chips?


1 player does have a huge impact on a team but he alone does not control their entire fate. To highlight this fact, lets review Isiah's team rankings over his career. Now his first 2 seasons were technically All-Star seasons but just barely, his teams were sub.500 squads and he himself was producing at a fringe All-Star rate, so he was basically just an All-Star by name. Everything changed in the 1984 season, the team had very little turnover, what it got was growth from within, the most important of which came from Zeke. He had finally entered that star discussion and was producing as such. His team made the playoffs for the first time, so we'll start from this point;

Year - Offensive Rank - Defensive Rank
84 : 1st - 16th (23 teams)
85 : 6th - 9th
86 : 7th - 15th

87 : 9th - 5th
88 : 6th - 2nd
89 : 7th - 3rd (25 Teams)
90 : 11th - 1st (27 teams)

91 : 12th - 4th
92 : 15th - 6th
93 : 8th - 15th


Care to guess which years Zeke made the Finals and which years he won? Yup, those years where his teams defense was at its best. Now unless you expect me to believe a diminutive PG who was never an All-League defender to begin with was the reason for that turn around, Im going to believe the addition of Dumars, Rodman etc.. are what turned them into contenders.

I grouped those seasons for a reason. His first 3 playoff appearances, the Pistons were just your run of the mill playoff team. Strong offense but the lack of defense held them back. In that 2nd stretch run, the Pistons gradually became stronger defensive clubs. Those were actually the years where Zeke ceased being an All-NBA performer, what he became was strictly a playoff performer.

In the playoffs, Zeke had played about as well as he always had, the difference was he was on a team where someone could actually outshine him in the Finals and a team defense behind him that would give him plenty of possessions to work with.


Wake me up when CP3 has a historic defense behind him because his teams have NEVER lost due to their lack of offense, in fact, thats an area hes helped his team more than Zeke has.

I dont know why we're expecting PG's to anchor their teams defense, but thats why Zekes championships shouldn't separate him much, if at all in this comparison. Im sorry but you would have to be a complete fool to think CP3 isn't a better defender than Zeke, so CP3 would only add to their dominance on that end. CP3 is also so incredibly efficient that even if we went to the extreme end of the spectrum and assumed some kind of drop off in Detroit's system, it would have to completely fall off a cliff for them to decline on that end. I highly doubt such a decline is possible, but feel free to point me to one such example.







I hope Paul wins one before you guys make people hate him and we can continue to love him.

Same here, if only because people cant look past not winning for some odd reason. Even tho it should be clear that winning is more than just about 1 player. Its better to look at how they won AND lost because when we only focus on winning, you can rank lots of inferior winners ahead of "losers".

Chronz
08-19-2014, 01:52 PM
Great post .
There was some truth to it but too much cliche ridden garbage for my liking.

JasonJohnHorn
08-19-2014, 03:30 PM
I dont see how you got that impression.


The way I look at it is, theres a question of whos had the greater career and whos the greater player. Winning matters more to a career legacy, but if you're asking me who I want leading my team between 2 players, Im going to focus more on the things those players can actually control, ask yourself, can a player control his teams destiny more than he can control his own individual level of play?


Because nothing 1 player does equals winning, winning a group effort from the TEAM.


Everything you said here is true, but we measure how they won with the aid of stats.

Put it this way, Isiah's best days were clearly in his youth but they won titles in his later age. Same thing happened with KG, did you really need to see KG win a title to know he could? He just needed the right environment right. So what makes a player stand out as someone who cant win? Havent we already seen LOTS of inferior players win chips?


1 player does have a huge impact on a team but he alone does not control their entire fate. To highlight this fact, lets review Isiah's team rankings over his career. Now his first 2 seasons were technically All-Star seasons but just barely, his teams were sub.500 squads and he himself was producing at a fringe All-Star rate, so he was basically just an All-Star by name. Everything changed in the 1984 season, the team had very little turnover, what it got was growth from within, the most important of which came from Zeke. He had finally entered that star discussion and was producing as such. His team made the playoffs for the first time, so we'll start from this point;

Year - Offensive Rank - Defensive Rank
84 : 1st - 16th (23 teams)
85 : 6th - 9th
86 : 7th - 15th

87 : 9th - 5th
88 : 6th - 2nd
89 : 7th - 3rd (25 Teams)
90 : 11th - 1st (27 teams)

91 : 12th - 4th
92 : 15th - 6th
93 : 8th - 15th


Care to guess which years Zeke made the Finals and which years he won? Yup, those years where his teams defense was at its best. Now unless you expect me to believe a diminutive PG who was never an All-League defender to begin with was the reason for that turn around, Im going to believe the addition of Dumars, Rodman etc.. are what turned them into contenders.

I grouped those seasons for a reason. His first 3 playoff appearances, the Pistons were just your run of the mill playoff team. Strong offense but the lack of defense held them back. In that 2nd stretch run, the Pistons gradually became stronger defensive clubs. Those were actually the years where Zeke ceased being an All-NBA performer, what he became was strictly a playoff performer.

In the playoffs, Zeke had played about as well as he always had, the difference was he was on a team where someone could actually outshine him in the Finals and a team defense behind him that would give him plenty of possessions to work with.


Wake me up when CP3 has a historic defense behind him because his teams have NEVER lost due to their lack of offense, in fact, thats an area hes helped his team more than Zeke has.

I dont know why we're expecting PG's to anchor their teams defense, but thats why Zekes championships shouldn't separate him much, if at all in this comparison. Im sorry but you would have to be a complete fool to think CP3 isn't a better defender than Zeke, so CP3 would only add to their dominance on that end. CP3 is also so incredibly efficient that even if we went to the extreme end of the spectrum and assumed some kind of drop off in Detroit's system, it would have to completely fall off a cliff for them to decline on that end. I highly doubt such a decline is possible, but feel free to point me to one such example.







Same here, if only because people cant look past not winning for some odd reason. Even tho it should be clear that winning is more than just about 1 player. Its better to look at how they won AND lost because when we only focus on winning, you can rank lots of inferior winners ahead of "losers".

Greater post.

savvy1803
08-19-2014, 03:36 PM
There was some truth to it but too much cliche ridden garbage for my liking.

Facts are facts Chronz he has yet to win a championship and until he does he will be judged accordingly ( perhaps by some too harshly but it is what it is ) , you can point out efficiency , defensive prowess and how winning is all about the team more then one individual all you want but as the leader or engine of this team people want to see him win something , lead them like other great players before him have done , at the very least make a Western final .

He has a great lineup to work with now , great coaching and solid ownership in place , it's time to win now , i know how deep the West is but like many greats before him he has to (find a way) to lead this team to the promised land . I believe he has all the ability to do this but as of right now it has not happened and until it does all the great metrics in the world won't stop people from wondering , can this guy win at the highest level even you must be tired of answering this question ?

Sometimes it comes down to heart , will and drive and a certain amount of luck and unfortunately there is no advanced metric to go to for that , this is why in Jason's poll i asked if either player X or Z had ever been to a championship or won one . If i have a chance to bring a point guard in with Championship DNA and a proven winner to boot i would always give that player serious consideration over someone without Championship experience but that's my opinion .

I will close this by saying i am not anti Chris Paul just the opposite i'm a fan of great basketball i don't start bait threads to take shots at players their teams or attack their fan base and i"m trying not to do any of that here but it's time for this player to take the next step and win . If you or anyone else disagrees with me that's certainly your right to do so just like it is my right to give my honest opinion .

Mr.SmackYoMama
08-19-2014, 03:46 PM
Yeah but Melos in the East.

Clippers would have made the last couple of conference finals out East easily.



And people who dismiss stats entirely don't know as much as they think they do.

Ignorance is ignorance either way.

Here's a stat for you Melo took The Nuggets to the Conference Finals and they are out of the West! :0)

Goose17
08-19-2014, 03:56 PM
Here's a stat for you Melo took The Nuggets to the Conference Finals and they are out of the West! :0)

Bit late mate, that's already been addressed. Cheers though.

And it isn't ignorance, it's quick posting and confusion lol.

Mr.SmackYoMama
08-19-2014, 04:18 PM
Bit late mate, that's already been addressed. Cheers though.

And it isn't ignorance, it's quick posting and confusion lol.

Whatever helps you sleep at night :0)

Chronz
08-19-2014, 04:54 PM
Facts are facts Chronz he has yet to win a championship and until he does he will be judged accordingly ( perhaps by some too harshly but it is what it is ) , you can point out efficiency , defensive prowess and how winning is all about the team more then one individual all you want but as the leader or engine of this team people want to see him win something , lead them like other great players before him have done , at the very least make a Western final .
Ur right, facts are facts, luckily I used facts too. I think people tend to view winning without context as much as people look at stats in vacuum. I try to look at what a player gets out of his situation more than how far he ultimately gets. Last year was the only year I felt CP3 let down in a series because of that 1 game. Hes no longer the clear cut best at his position anymore because of last years debacle in my eyes and his team still lost to a superior squad. But for his career, hes right in the conversation with anyone not named Magic/Big O (West if you count him as PG). Yes alot of that is based on his statistical achievements, but also on what I feel hes gotten out of his squads and the kind of heart/versatility hes displayed defensively.

You finish this by saying, lead them like other great player before him, well give him the kind of support that all those other "Greats" have and Im sure he will. Like Chauncey Billups technically "Lead" his team to a championship, in much the same manner as Isiah did (with an elite defensive team behind him, only Billups was actually a better defender) but you dont see anyone putting him in that rarified air and Im actually a BIG fan of Billups, I think hes criminally underrated (he was the 2nd most efficient PG of his generation, behind only Nash) but I wouldn't fault someone for putting John Stockton, Steve Nash or Jason Kidd ahead of him (Yes I know Kidd won a chip but it was in less impressive fashion IMO).




He has a great lineup to work with now , great coaching and solid ownership in place , it's time to win now , i know how deep the West is but like many greats before him he has to (find a way) to lead this team to the promised land . I believe he has all the ability to do this but as of right now it has not happened and until it does all the great metrics in the world won't stop people from wondering , can this guy win at the highest level even you must be tired of answering this question ?
Nope, I stopped asking those silly kind of questions when I realized how much of a team game this is. We've already seen inferior talents win a championship, why would I question it with a guy I find clearly superior? Like you cant tell me you have such a consistent criteria that you always have more accomplished players ahead of others. Does Elvin Hayes winning a chip as his teams lone "All-Star" put him above a guy like Charles Barkley? I sure as hell hope not.



Sometimes it comes down to heart , will and drive and a certain amount of luck and unfortunately there is no advanced metric to go to for that , this is why in Jason's poll i asked if either player X or Z had ever been to a championship or won one . If i have a chance to bring a point guard in with Championship DNA and a proven winner to boot i would always give that player serious consideration over someone without Championship experience but that's my opinion .
Luckily we dont need an advanced metric because that falls under the subjective element of the game, to which we can simply disagree on (unlike the facts that we cant disagree on, such as CP3's superior 2-way efficiency), tho I love seeing people try to prove one player has so much more heart that it led his team to victory. CP3 is as tough as they come, in terms of leadership Im not seeing how Zeke is significantly different. So even with this consideration, its a rather small distinction that doesn't outweigh the aspects of the game we can actually quantify. I mean, its not like we're dealing with a chasm of a difference here with the intangibles of the game, I actually think CP3 has a great argument for superior intangible worth considering his defensive superiority, and its not like CP3 is a mental midget either. I think both were superb leaders. Only CP3 gives me the added benefit of being the better talent. Championship DNA is a tricky thing to measure, because its only obvious once it actually happens. I didn't need to see KG win a championship to know he had championship DNA but I sure as hell couldn't prove it until he did so. I feel bad for those who needed that justification to put KG in that echelon of greats. I would have thought his game did enough talking.


I will close this by saying i am not anti Chris Paul just the opposite i'm a fan of great basketball i don't start bait threads to take shots at players their teams or attack their fan base and i"m trying not to do any of that here but it's time for this player to take the next step and win . If you or anyone else disagrees with me that's certainly your right to do so just like it is my right to give my honest opinion .
If this were prime time CP3 (before the injuries) then I would have had the same expectations last year, I've tempered my expectations and CP3 still let me down but it wasn't some career damaging loss either. I hope CP3 gets the same kind of defensive support that Zeke did because it would mean he doesn't have to do everything just so his teams offense can keep pace.

KnicksorBust
08-19-2014, 06:04 PM
Ur right, facts are facts, luckily I used facts too. I think people tend to view winning without context as much as people look at stats in vacuum.

I agree with this to some degree but sports is all about the bottom line and many of those "contextual" arguments often read more like excuses. I want to bang my head against a wall every time I hear someone talk about the "golden era" of the 90s where apparently all of the top 100 players were all playing at once. It's as if any all-star in the 90s was as good as an MVP in the 60s and making it to the 2nd round against a tough Pacers team is as good as winning a title. The amount of people that can even properly contextualize feels like a subset of a subset of a subset of people. Ya know?


I try to look at what a player gets out of his situation more than how far he ultimately gets. Last year was the only year I felt CP3 let down in a series because of that 1 game.

Here I completely agree with you. Paul has had extremely successful individual playoff runs where his teams just simply were not talented enough to advance in the playoffs. Last year was the first year I felt like I was watching HIM let me down.


Hes no longer the clear cut best at his position anymore because of last years debacle in my eyes and his team still lost to a superior squad.

Who would you put on his tier?


But for his career, hes right in the conversation with anyone not named Magic/Big O (West if you count him as PG). Yes alot of that is based on his statistical achievements, but also on what I feel hes gotten out of his squads and the kind of heart/versatility hes displayed defensively.

Agreed. I basically said the same thing earlier in this thread. I'm not even sure I'd take Oscar over him. Paul's ability to shoot is critical in the modern era.


You finish this by saying, lead them like other great player before him, well give him the kind of support that all those other "Greats" have and Im sure he will. Like Chauncey Billups technically "Lead" his team to a championship, in much the same manner as Isiah did (with an elite defensive team behind him, only Billups was actually a better defender) but you dont see anyone putting him in that rarified air and Im actually a BIG fan of Billups, I think hes criminally underrated (he was the 2nd most efficient PG of his generation, behind only Nash) but I wouldn't fault someone for putting John Stockton, Steve Nash or Jason Kidd ahead of him (Yes I know Kidd won a chip but it was in less impressive fashion IMO).

I don't think you'll get a lot of push-back on this either. Stockton, Nash, and Kidd are all universally accepted ahead of Billups. The problem is when you have comparable careers but one has a historically memorable performance. The playoffs is obviously where you are most likely to find these differences. Paul hasn't had that career defining game because no one is going to be impressed 10 years from now that Paul lit up the Lakers in round 1 game 3 to take a 2-1 lead on a team that got knocked out before the conference finals. Meanwhile Isiah's legacy will live forever on that Finals MVP. Hell his most memorable performance might be the Game 6 where he lost but he took his team on his back in the Finals. That's a moment.


Nope, I stopped asking those silly kind of questions when I realized how much of a team game this is. We've already seen inferior talents win a championship, why would I question it with a guy I find clearly superior? Like you cant tell me you have such a consistent criteria that you always have more accomplished players ahead of others. Does Elvin Hayes winning a chip as his teams lone "All-Star" put him above a guy like Charles Barkley? I sure as hell hope not.

But that's the thing... most of these comparisons don't work. With minimal effort you could prove that Barkley had the superior career. That's why in the polls Hayes isn't even nominated yet. These examples: Billups vs. Kidd, Hayes vs. Barkley. That one title won't swing a whole career's worth of inferior play. It's a balancing act. However, when you look at a guy like Garnett and a guy like Karl Malone. Both who were incredible talents. Both who won MVPs. Both who were leaders of their teams. Then maybe the ring swings the debate.


Luckily we dont need an advanced metric because that falls under the subjective element of the game, to which we can simply disagree on (unlike the facts that we cant disagree on, such as CP3's superior 2-way efficiency), tho I love seeing people try to prove one player has so much more heart that it led his team to victory. CP3 is as tough as they come, in terms of leadership Im not seeing how Zeke is significantly different. So even with this consideration, its a rather small distinction that doesn't outweigh the aspects of the game we can actually quantify. I mean, its not like we're dealing with a chasm of a difference here with the intangibles of the game, I actually think CP3 has a great argument for superior intangible worth considering his defensive superiority, and its not like CP3 is a mental midget either. I think both were superb leaders. Only CP3 gives me the added benefit of being the better talent. Championship DNA is a tricky thing to measure, because its only obvious once it actually happens. I didn't need to see KG win a championship to know he had championship DNA but I sure as hell couldn't prove it until he did so. I feel bad for those who needed that justification to put KG in that echelon of greats. I would have thought his game did enough talking.

I did need that because there was a mountain of evidence to the contrary.


If this were prime time CP3 (before the injuries) then I would have had the same expectations last year, I've tempered my expectations and CP3 still let me down but it wasn't some career damaging loss either. I hope CP3 gets the same kind of defensive support that Zeke did because it would mean he doesn't have to do everything just so his teams offense can keep pace.

He's still producing at a scary high level. You really think the fall has been that bad from "prime time" ?

savvy1803
08-19-2014, 07:29 PM
Ur right, facts are facts, luckily I used facts too. I think people tend to view winning without context as much as people look at stats in vacuum. I try to look at what a player gets out of his situation more than how far he ultimately gets. Last year was the only year I felt CP3 let down in a series because of that 1 game. Hes no longer the clear cut best at his position anymore because of last years debacle in my eyes and his team still lost to a superior squad. But for his career, hes right in the conversation with anyone not named Magic/Big O (West if you count him as PG). Yes alot of that is based on his statistical achievements, but also on what I feel hes gotten out of his squads and the kind of heart/versatility hes displayed defensively.

As a Clipper fan why would this matter if he is the clear cut best at his position he is still a great player and the leader of your team , it's not like his skill's have fallen off a cliff and many would argue he is still the premium guard in the league .




You finish this by saying, lead them like other great player before him, well give him the kind of support that all those other "Greats" have and Im sure he will. Like Chauncey Billups technically "Lead" his team to a championship, in much the same manner as Isiah did (with an elite defensive team behind him, only Billups was actually a better defender) but you dont see anyone putting him in that rarified air and Im actually a BIG fan of Billups, I think hes criminally underrated (he was the 2nd most efficient PG of his generation, behind only Nash) but I wouldn't fault someone for putting John Stockton, Steve Nash or Jason Kidd ahead of him (Yes I know Kidd won a chip but it was in less impressive fashion IMO).

Do you feel with the squad as currently constructed that CP3 has enough to get out of the West and contend for a Championship , if not what would you like your team to improve on and what players would you bring in to help achieve this ?




Nope, I stopped asking those silly kind of questions when I realized how much of a team game this is. We've already seen inferior talents win a championship, why would I question it with a guy I find clearly superior? Like you cant tell me you have such a consistent criteria that you always have more accomplished players ahead of others. Does Elvin Hayes winning a chip as his teams lone "All-Star" put him above a guy like Charles Barkley? I sure as hell hope not.

The question will remain active until he wins whether you find it silly or not , i believe he is ready to take the next step , time will tell .



Luckily we dont need an advanced metric because that falls under the subjective element of the game, to which we can simply disagree on (unlike the facts that we cant disagree on, such as CP3's superior 2-way efficiency), tho I love seeing people try to prove one player has so much more heart that it led his team to victory. CP3 is as tough as they come, in terms of leadership Im not seeing how Zeke is significantly different. So even with this consideration, its a rather small distinction that doesn't outweigh the aspects of the game we can actually quantify. I mean, its not like we're dealing with a chasm of a difference here with the intangibles of the game, I actually think CP3 has a great argument for superior intangible worth considering his defensive superiority, and its not like CP3 is a mental midget either. I think both were superb leaders. Only CP3 gives me the added benefit of being the better talent. Championship DNA is a tricky thing to measure, because its only obvious once it actually happens. I didn't need to see KG win a championship to know he had championship DNA but I sure as hell couldn't prove it until he did so. I feel bad for those who needed that justification to put KG in that echelon of greats. I would have thought his game did enough talking.


The subjective element as you like to call it ( or something you can't put a stat to ) , i don't think we differ much at all , i feel he is ready to actually do it but as of yet has been unable . As far as his efficiency i have never questioned any of the stats you provided but when does it stop being about the stats and start being about the team goal of winning a championship ?

Cp3 may have the benefit of being the better talent then Zeke but the less efficient Zeke was able to lead his team to 2 championships as well and i'm not denying the Piston's defensive dominance over the current Clippers team but he was still able to get there and win , begs the question are the Clippers offense heavy and defense light ?

As for Championship DNA , you said " I didn't need to see KG win a championship to know he had championship DNA but i sure as hell couldn't prove it until he did so ". People are asking this of CP3 , knowing he won at the Olympic level they want to see the next progression an NBA championship , in essence asking him to prove it , are they being unreasonable in their thought's ?

Bringing in a championship proven player ( providing chemistry remains in tact ) can have a positive and calming effect on a locker room that is ready to take the next step especially during high pressure playoff moments .



If this were prime time CP3 (before the injuries) then I would have had the same expectations last year, I've tempered my expectations and CP3 still let me down but it wasn't some career damaging loss either. I hope CP3 gets the same kind of defensive support that Zeke did because it would mean he doesn't have to do everything just so his teams offense can keep pace.

He let no one down and gave it all he had and came up a bit short , it happens it's sports , a lot has went right for the Clippers this off season and i expect him to be back and hungrier then ever and hopefully they can find more balance on the defensive side of the ball , expecting greatness out of great players is never a bad thing Chronz at least i don't feel it is .

JasonJohnHorn
08-19-2014, 10:01 PM
Facts are facts.


YES! And the fact is, the Bad Boy Pistons were FAR deeper than ANY team Chris Paul has ever played with.

I agree!

And I also agree that going by ring count is just silly, because then Adam Morrison would be better than Kevin Durant, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and John Stockton, while Robert Horry would be better than Jordan.

FlashBolt
08-19-2014, 11:08 PM
Chronz summed it up best. Under the right circumstances, any above average All-Star player can win. Look at Billups. Do you consider him one of the greatest to play the game? So what really establishes himself from Paul? The fact that he had a better team? I like his argument with KG because we KNEW KG was more than capable of winning. It was just the simple fact that he was never put into a situation that was fortunate enough to compete with other teams. Look what happened when he went to Boston. How many rings would KG have if he was the one in Tim Duncan's spot and Duncan was playing for the lone wolves? Every player has it in him. Let's stop using rings as an argument when comparing players who's teams were evidently much better than the other player.

SPURSFAN1
08-19-2014, 11:44 PM
Chronz summed it up best. Under the right circumstances, any above average All-Star player can win. Look at Billups. Do you consider him one of the greatest to play the game? So what really establishes himself from Paul? The fact that he had a better team? I like his argument with KG because we KNEW KG was more than capable of winning. It was just the simple fact that he was never put into a situation that was fortunate enough to compete with other teams. Look what happened when he went to Boston. How many rings would KG have if he was the one in Tim Duncan's spot and Duncan was playing for the lone wolves? Every player has it in him. Let's stop using rings as an argument when comparing players who's teams were evidently much better than the other player.

Why do people think you can supplant one player for another and have the same results? :laugh:

basketfan4life
08-20-2014, 05:08 AM
First of all, everybody knows we can place players with better stats above players with worse stats who won. I hate when people come out and say, horry has 7 so is he the best? fish has 5 is he equal to Kobe? We're comparing Zeke to Paul or Wade to Kobe or these kind of things. Not a superstar to role player.


There was some truth to it but too much cliche ridden garbage for my liking.
Back to you Chronz, while i think you are one of the best poster on PSD, your language is a bit harsh sometimes. First of all, there is no cliche, every one of what i wrote are my ideas.

About your long post,
Everybody and their dogs know winning a chip is a team effort. And as a playmaker, teams effort is in playmakers control to a degree.

What you basically say is, you can't control what the team does, as much as you control yourself. That is true, but i think what Paul can do/control is, let Blake score more, actually force him to score more, let Crawford score more,
get better use of Dudley and Reddick. Be the 3rd most scorer of your team at best. He might have worse regulars and metrics by doing those things and be a better player. And yes i completely believe it. There are a lot of ways of holding your team/teammates accountable and Paul is the one player that i believe who can do it. Prime Kidd is better than Paul in that regard if you ask me. If he develops himself in this regard, to prime Kidd degree, knowing he is already better than all other offensive areas than Kidd, i think than he can win a chip, even against more loaded teams. I think a Chris Paul lead team can be better than the sums of its parts. If Paul can do this, i think he will be a better player with worse stats. You can say garbage cliche to this, but that is something i can't control. Also i even believe, he might be the first offensive option when needed even with being the 3rd most scorer on the team.

And about Garnett, i think he proved that he can't win as the first offensive option, but can win as 2nd/3rd option on offense and defensive anchor.

Goose17
08-20-2014, 05:19 AM
Whatever helps you sleep at night :0)

Lol. Okay buddy.

Chronz
08-20-2014, 10:44 AM
First of all, everybody knows we can place players with better stats above players with worse stats who won. I hate when people come out and say, horry has 7 so is he the best? fish has 5 is he equal to Kobe? We're comparing Zeke to Paul or Wade to Kobe or these kind of things. Not a superstar to role player.
Why not look at the example I cite, Elvin Hayes vs Karl Malone/Chuck.



Back to you Chronz, while i think you are one of the best poster on PSD, your language is a bit harsh sometimes. First of all, there is no cliche, every one of what i wrote are my ideas.
Still cliche ridden.


About your long post,
Everybody and their dogs know winning a chip is a team effort.
Im glad you understand that fact. Thats a good start for meaningful comparisons between individuals.


And as a playmaker, teams effort is in playmakers control to a degree.
CP3 happens to be one of those unselfish players that has gotten effort from his squads, whatever that means Im not sure but I will commend you if you can prove he doesn't.



What you basically say is, you can't control what the team does, as much as you control yourself. That is true, but i think what Paul can do/control is, let Blake score more, actually force him to score more, let Crawford score more,
What makes you think hes not letting them? Do you not watch the games? If anything hes too deferential, Blake's one on one game is matchup dependent, he struggles with guys like Ibaka/Marc Gasol so it puts more pressure on CP3 to score. Jamal Crawford actually chucked WAY too much (there was actually an article that described how him chucking was hurting the team yet you think he should shoot even more? Do you even know what his usage rate was in the playoffs? Seriously, go look it up, its laughable how much of a green light Doc gave him), the reason he didn't score enough was because he himself wasn't efficient enough. We would actually be better off if CP3 was MORE aggressive, but hes not the athlete he used to be.

Its funny tho, Offense isn't whats holding the Clippers back, its not surprising you chose to focus on the least important aspect but its doubly hilarious because CP3 is actually too deferential. Its why Doc wants him to focus more on scoring. Its why when Doc was in Boston, he was trying to trade Rondo (the passer) for CP3 (The more complete offensive player). Its the same reason Team USA was going to cut Rondo (before he quit) for more natural scorers, despite it being a team of All-Stars. Point being, your "ideas" are outdated and rooted in emotion more than anything. That is of course, unless you have some historical examples to cite here.



get better use of Dudley and Reddick.
Its almost like you dont even know that Dudley is a 1 trick pony or that Reddick had the entire offense revolve around his style of play, so hes actually being maximized, in fact, if not for injuries, he was having his most aggressive offensive season of his career. Its really sad you dont know any of this, and Im still waiting for any mentioning of our teams defensive shortcomings and how it pertains to the Zeke debate.


Be the 3rd most scorer of your team at best. He might have worse regulars and metrics by doing those things and be a better player. And yes i completely believe it. There are a lot of ways of holding your team/teammates accountable and Paul is the one player that i believe who can do it.
Or he could listen to someone more knowledgeable, like Doc Rivers, who wants him to be MORE aggressive. The team would be better off if he were our leading scorer, or if he were somehow more efficient. If this were prime CP3 he would be, but as it stands hes found a decent balance.

Why would he have to be the 3rd most scorer? Why even come up with such an arbitrary ranking??



Prime Kidd is better than Paul in that regard if you ask me.
How come Kidd didn't need to be his teams 3rd scorer? You do know that Kidd was regularly his teams leading scorer, his teams offense wasn't very good tho, because Kidd was actually a pretty mediocre offensive player by comparison, what Kidd brings is elite defense/rebounding. His teams won because of their defensive stature.




If he develops himself in this regard, to prime Kidd degree, knowing he is already better than all other offensive areas than Kidd, i think than he can win a chip, even against more loaded teams.
Kidd never won a chip in his prime, so why would he have to if the basis of your argument is winning with no regard towards context? CP3 doesn't have to change anything to win, in fact he would have a far better chance of winning had he been the scorer he used to be.


I think a Chris Paul lead team can be better than the sums of its parts. If Paul can do this, i think he will be a better player with worse stats.
Can you provide any proof that they havent been better than the sum of its parts? If CP3 could score like he used to, he would be a better player with better stats, and the team would be better for it. Whats the point in mentioning these what ifs? What does ANY of this have to do with Zeke vs CP3?


You can say garbage cliche to this, but that is something i can't control. Also i even believe, he might be the first offensive option when needed even with being the 3rd most scorer on the team.
Have no idea what you're saying or the significance of it.

You have COMPLETELY ignored my post. Which is disappointing considering you called out another poster for ignoring yours.


And about Garnett, i think he proved that he can't win as the first offensive option, but can win as 2nd/3rd option on offense and defensive anchor.
He won as his teams best player and his game had declined to that point. At his peak, he was a better offensive player than anyone on that squad so cut me the cliche about first option and second options. We've already seen inferior first options win titles. So why would I question him?

Chronz
08-20-2014, 11:01 AM
Why do people think you can supplant one player for another and have the same results? :laugh:
NBA History, teams have replaced all kinds of players in the past (Including Pop wanting to upgrade his championship team at PG, and having wanted to trade TP in the past, especially in those days when TP was bad mouthing his teams title chances), depending on team makeup and expected growth, teams have improved, declined, or stagnated. Was the emoticon meant sarcastically or are you just being dense?

SLY WILLIAMS
08-20-2014, 11:04 AM
Comparing any players by stats alone instead of watching them play is so ridiculously myopic in my opinion.

Player K has career averages of PPG: 19.3 APG: 7.6 from ages 19-31 Great player?

Chronz
08-20-2014, 11:20 AM
I agree with this to some degree but sports is all about the bottom line and many of those "contextual" arguments often read more like excuses. I want to bang my head against a wall every time I hear someone talk about the "golden era" of the 90s where apparently all of the top 100 players were all playing at once. It's as if any all-star in the 90s was as good as an MVP in the 60s and making it to the 2nd round against a tough Pacers team is as good as winning a title. The amount of people that can even properly contextualize feels like a subset of a subset of a subset of people. Ya know?
Depends on the fact based talking points to me.


Who would you put on his tier?
Steph, RWB, Rose*



Agreed. I basically said the same thing earlier in this thread. I'm not even sure I'd take Oscar over him. Paul's ability to shoot is critical in the modern era.

Oscar was incredibly efficient for his era, very much the CP3 of his day. Dont like punishing players for adapting to their era's style of play, at least when it comes to the 3pt era vs 60's/70's. I do think both of these players had the talent/skill to play in any era and in the case of CP3, I actually think hes better off without the emphasis on shooting. Hes more of a midrange guy, his 3pt shooting has been on the decline, its at a point where defenders are starting to get lax on his PnR coverage, a major reason his paint attacks have declined IMO.


I don't think you'll get a lot of push-back on this either. Stockton, Nash, and Kidd are all universally accepted ahead of Billups. The problem is when you have comparable careers but one has a historically memorable performance. The playoffs is obviously where you are most likely to find these differences. Paul hasn't had that career defining game because no one is going to be impressed 10 years from now that Paul lit up the Lakers in round 1 game 3 to take a 2-1 lead on a team that got knocked out before the conference finals. Meanwhile Isiah's legacy will live forever on that Finals MVP. Hell his most memorable performance might be the Game 6 where he lost but he took his team on his back in the Finals. That's a moment.

The moments are definitely in his favor, the sheer number of opportunities hes had have given him a better story book career. That matters when ranking these guys, its why I would have to agree with Zeke having had the better career. But I also know how meaningless such a distinction can be when I feel there is a superior player who never got the same chances.



But that's the thing... most of these comparisons don't work. With minimal effort you could prove that Barkley had the superior career. That's why in the polls Hayes isn't even nominated yet. These examples: Billups vs. Kidd, Hayes vs. Barkley. That one title won't swing a whole career's worth of inferior play. It's a balancing act. However, when you look at a guy like Garnett and a guy like Karl Malone. Both who were incredible talents. Both who won MVPs. Both who were leaders of their teams. Then maybe the ring swings the debate.

Im glad you find it so effortless but thats how effortless I found Malone vs KG before the rings ever came. Values change over time tho, Im starting to value longevity alil more and without that ring, maybe KG doesn't stand out. Winning definitely matters, but like you said, it depends on the comparison.


I did need that because there was a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Like what?




He's still producing at a scary high level. You really think the fall has been that bad from "prime time" ?
Its declined every year, he doesn't have the same angles to attack defenses. Teams are starting to go under his high screens. Hes becoming more and more of a mid range specialist who doesn't penetrate as much as he could. Hes so skilled from the elbows that he can still attract plenty of attention, but if his 3pt shooting doesn't recover, his decline will become more noticeable as he ages. Im hoping for a Tim Hardaway like career descent.

Prime CP3 wasn't the defender he is now, his understanding of nba body positioning has always been elite, but he used to be abit quicker and definitely more nimble/agile. He used to run more side PnR's now he tries to post up abit more on the wing and thats not something you can do to playoff teams so its a wasted skill on this team.

basketfan4life
08-21-2014, 04:22 AM
Why not look at the example I cite, Elvin Hayes vs Karl Malone/Chuck.

Good example. At least better tahn Horry vs. Jordan


Still cliche ridden.

For you.


Im glad you understand that fact. Thats a good start for meaningful comparisons between individuals.

Haha. Everybody understands that fact. Believe me, nobody is genius for knowing that. It's just some people act like individual performances don't directly relate to team performance. It would be a better start.


CP3 happens to be one of those unselfish players that has gotten effort from his squads, whatever that means Im not sure but I will commend you if you can prove he doesn't.
I don't know if you read everything but i actually said he is just one player i believe who can do it. But i don't think he is up to the level he can be.


What makes you think hes not letting them? Do you not watch the games? If anything hes too deferential, Blake's one on one game is matchup dependent, he struggles with guys like Ibaka/Marc Gasol so it puts more pressure on CP3 to score. Jamal Crawford actually chucked WAY too much (there was actually an article that described how him chucking was hurting the team yet you think he should shoot even more? Do you even know what his usage rate was in the playoffs? Seriously, go look it up, its laughable how much of a green light Doc gave him), the reason he didn't score enough was because he himself wasn't efficient enough. We would actually be better off if CP3 was MORE aggressive, but hes not the athlete he used to be.

I don't know, Blake was tearing it apart when CP3 was injured. I assume it should be better with CP3, why it is not? That is what exactly i'm talking about, get better(key word; better) use of your teammates. I expect a player like Crawford with lots of offensive capabilities, be better with Paul. Why is he inefficient? Is he getting the ball on his favourite spots? Is he having good shots? What about driving lanes? As the teams primary ball handler and a dominant one at that, idoes CP3 have any resposibility about it? Or everthing is ok on CP3's part because his assist numbers and PER is brilliant ? We are not talking about being a superstar here, he is of course one. We are talking about being the best of the best of the best at what he is doing and all i am suggesting is he should do something better. If someone reads your previous post, he thinks CP3 is trapped in an awful situation, doing everything right but his team sucks.


Its funny tho, Offense isn't whats holding the Clippers back, its not surprising you chose to focus on the least important aspect but its doubly hilarious because CP3 is actually too deferential. Its why Doc wants him to focus more on scoring. Its why when Doc was in Boston, he was trying to trade Rondo (the passer) for CP3 (The more complete offensive player). Its the same reason Team USA was going to cut Rondo (before he quit) for more natural scorers, despite it being a team of All-Stars. Point being, your "ideas" are outdated and rooted in emotion more than anything. That is of course, unless you have some historical examples to cite here.


Doc tried to get CP3 for Rondo, because CP3 is a hell of a lot better player than Rondo, at everything including leading a team. If you are trying to compare CP3 to Rondo continue, who am i to stop you. I'm trying to compare him to one of the best players of his position ever who lead his teams to 'ships. Do i have to cite that Rondo is an offensive liability? Come on. I'm not saying CP3 should be a worse scorer.



Its almost like you dont even know that Dudley is a 1 trick pony or that Reddick had the entire offense revolve around his style of play, so hes actually being maximized, in fact, if not for injuries, he was having his most aggressive offensive season of his career. Its really sad you dont know any of this, and Im still waiting for any mentioning of our teams defensive shortcomings and how it pertains to the Zeke debate.

Ok, are you going to be relieved, if i say your teams defence is not good enough? It's not good enough :) But even if it was better, i don't think it would put you over the top. It's good to know all that about Reddick. I like the guy. About Dudley, he was a very useful player for years with a deadlt 3 pointer in Phoenix, why all of his percentages went down including his 3 pointer in his one year in Clippers? If your answer is he is one trick pony, it already sums up that this is an empty discussion. Again, i'd expect spot up deadly shooters to thrive with CP3.


Or he could listen to someone more knowledgeable, like Doc Rivers, who wants him to be MORE aggressive. The team would be better off if he were our leading scorer, or if he were somehow more efficient. If this were prime CP3 he would be, but as it stands hes found a decent balance.

Ok, we could assume every coach is more knowledgeable than we are and do not talk about basketball.


Why would he have to be the 3rd most scorer? Why even come up with such an arbitrary ranking??

How come Kidd didn't need to be his teams 3rd scorer? You do know that Kidd was regularly his teams leading scorer, his teams offense wasn't very good tho, because Kidd was actually a pretty mediocre offensive player by comparison, what Kidd brings is elite defense/rebounding. His teams won because of their defensive stature.

Kidd never won a chip in his prime, so why would he have to if the basis of your argument is winning with no regard towards context? CP3 doesn't have to change anything to win, in fact he would have a far better chance of winning had he been the scorer he used to be.

Can you provide any proof that they havent been better than the sum of its parts? If CP3 could score like he used to, he would be a better player with better stats, and the team would be better for it. Whats the point in mentioning these what ifs? What does ANY of this have to do with Zeke vs CP3?

You got everything wrong about what i tried to say about Jason Kidd. It's like you are on a tunnel vision now to defend your teams franchise player. I already mentioned Paul is better at everything except helding his teammates accountable. I know he never one a chip in his prime,i say if CP3 develops his leading ability to j.kidd level(or may be prime Nash, Kidd's leading ability was just an example to say Paul has one last step to be a legend, i guess he is already a legend for you), he already has all the other tools. And my argument definetly is not winning with no regard towards context. I think Paul has everything in place now to win. The context is there. If he is one of the top PG's that has ever played, there is enough for him to win now. But no wonder why you are trying to put words in my mouth to defend your boy.


He won as his teams best player and his game had declined to that point. At his peak, he was a better offensive player than anyone on that squad so cut me the cliche about first option and second options. We've already seen inferior first options win titles. So why would I question him?
I'm not giving anybody a title unless they earn it. Knowing Garnett never had an opportunity to win in Minnesota, i'm not going to give a title to him as the best scorer of his team too. And i don't remember me saying he didn't win as the best player on his team. But he was not the best player on the finals, actually hurting his team on offense in the first 3 games. At least it was not like Kobe-Shaq-Lebron-Duncan type best player. He was probably the best player.

Eidt: Looking at it now, Kidd was Nets's 3rd most scorer in the regular season first finals year. First scorer the second year. Just an info.

Oefarmy2005
08-21-2014, 09:45 AM
I'll take CP3.

JasonJohnHorn
08-21-2014, 02:10 PM
I'll take CP3.

Word!

FlashBolt
08-21-2014, 07:22 PM
Good example. At least better tahn Horry vs. Jordan

For you.

Haha. Everybody understands that fact. Believe me, nobody is genius for knowing that. It's just some people act like individual performances don't directly relate to team performance. It would be a better start.

I don't know if you read everything but i actually said he is just one player i believe who can do it. But i don't think he is up to the level he can be.

I don't know, Blake was tearing it apart when CP3 was injured. I assume it should be better with CP3, why it is not? That is what exactly i'm talking about, get better(key word; better) use of your teammates. I expect a player like Crawford with lots of offensive capabilities, be better with Paul. Why is he inefficient? Is he getting the ball on his favourite spots? Is he having good shots? What about driving lanes? As the teams primary ball handler and a dominant one at that, idoes CP3 have any resposibility about it? Or everthing is ok on CP3's part because his assist numbers and PER is brilliant ? We are not talking about being a superstar here, he is of course one. We are talking about being the best of the best of the best at what he is doing and all i am suggesting is he should do something better. If someone reads your previous post, he thinks CP3 is trapped in an awful situation, doing everything right but his team sucks.


Doc tried to get CP3 for Rondo, because CP3 is a hell of a lot better player than Rondo, at everything including leading a team. If you are trying to compare CP3 to Rondo continue, who am i to stop you. I'm trying to compare him to one of the best players of his position ever who lead his teams to 'ships. Do i have to cite that Rondo is an offensive liability? Come on. I'm not saying CP3 should be a worse scorer.


Ok, are you going to be relieved, if i say your teams defence is not good enough? It's not good enough :) But even if it was better, i don't think it would put you over the top. It's good to know all that about Reddick. I like the guy. About Dudley, he was a very useful player for years with a deadlt 3 pointer in Phoenix, why all of his percentages went down including his 3 pointer in his one year in Clippers? If your answer is he is one trick pony, it already sums up that this is an empty discussion. Again, i'd expect spot up deadly shooters to thrive with CP3.

Ok, we could assume every coach is more knowledgeable than we are and do not talk about basketball.

You got everything wrong about what i tried to say about Jason Kidd. It's like you are on a tunnel vision now to defend your teams franchise player. I already mentioned Paul is better at everything except helding his teammates accountable. I know he never one a chip in his prime,i say if CP3 develops his leading ability to j.kidd level(or may be prime Nash, Kidd's leading ability was just an example to say Paul has one last step to be a legend, i guess he is already a legend for you), he already has all the other tools. And my argument definetly is not winning with no regard towards context. I think Paul has everything in place now to win. The context is there. If he is one of the top PG's that has ever played, there is enough for him to win now. But no wonder why you are trying to put words in my mouth to defend your boy.

I'm not giving anybody a title unless they earn it. Knowing Garnett never had an opportunity to win in Minnesota, i'm not going to give a title to him as the best scorer of his team too. And i don't remember me saying he didn't win as the best player on his team. But he was not the best player on the finals, actually hurting his team on offense in the first 3 games. At least it was not like Kobe-Shaq-Lebron-Duncan type best player. He was probably the best player.

Eidt: Looking at it now, Kidd was Nets's 3rd most scorer in the regular season first finals year. First scorer the second year. Just an info.

Payton, Stockton, Kidd, Nash, AI (probably an SG?), and many more PG's have never won a thing. Unless you consider Kidd/Payton rings eligible while they were pretty much finished with their career, CP3 in New Orleans pretty much had nothing to work with. He's only been in Clippers for 3 years and the first 1 was excusable since they were still meshing. 2nd year was an okay season. 3rd season shouldn't have been an excuse but I'll be the first OKC fan to tell you that Clippers were robbed after repeatedly being screwed on those calls.

basketfan4life
08-22-2014, 02:21 AM
Payton, Stockton, Kidd, Nash, AI (probably an SG?), and many more PG's have never won a thing. Unless you consider Kidd/Payton rings eligible while they were pretty much finished with their career, CP3 in New Orleans pretty much had nothing to work with. He's only been in Clippers for 3 years and the first 1 was excusable since they were still meshing. 2nd year was an okay season. 3rd season shouldn't have been an excuse but I'll be the first OKC fan to tell you that Clippers were robbed after repeatedly being screwed on those calls.

So what are you trying to say? The context is there, i'm not blaming him for not winning the past 3 years, i'm saying he should win 1 for me to put him in front of all time greats like Zeke, come on getting past 2nd round would be a good start.

AIRMAR72
08-22-2014, 05:40 AM
Rando and John walls

Chronz
08-22-2014, 11:45 AM
always a pleasure basketfan

KnicksorBust
08-22-2014, 05:12 PM
Depends on the fact based talking points to me.

But that is the biggest problem is that no one can ever factually prove how "strong" or "weak" an era was in comparison to other eras.


Steph, RWB, Rose*

Random question: Would OKC be better with Westbrook or Dragic?


Oscar was incredibly efficient for his era, very much the CP3 of his day. Dont like punishing players for adapting to their era's style of play, at least when it comes to the 3pt era vs 60's/70's. I do think both of these players had the talent/skill to play in any era and in the case of CP3, I actually think hes better off without the emphasis on shooting. Hes more of a midrange guy, his 3pt shooting has been on the decline, its at a point where defenders are starting to get lax on his PnR coverage, a major reason his paint attacks have declined IMO.

I disagree that it is punishing him to assume that CP3 has an edge perimeter shooting. It's common sense.


The moments are definitely in his favor, the sheer number of opportunities hes had have given him a better story book career. That matters when ranking these guys, its why I would have to agree with Zeke having had the better career. But I also know how meaningless such a distinction can be when I feel there is a superior player who never got the same chances.

It just seems to more that in general the best players tend to put themselves in situations to seize or crumble in these moments.


Im glad you find it so effortless but thats how effortless I found Malone vs KG before the rings ever came. Values change over time tho, Im starting to value longevity alil more and without that ring, maybe KG doesn't stand out. Winning definitely matters, but like you said, it depends on the comparison.

Agreed.


Like what?

Kevin Garnett's almost yearly disappearing act in the playoffs from the mid 90s to the early 00s.



Its declined every year, he doesn't have the same angles to attack defenses. Teams are starting to go under his high screens. Hes becoming more and more of a mid range specialist who doesn't penetrate as much as he could. Hes so skilled from the elbows that he can still attract plenty of attention, but if his 3pt shooting doesn't recover, his decline will become more noticeable as he ages. Im hoping for a Tim Hardaway like career descent.

Prime CP3 wasn't the defender he is now, his understanding of nba body positioning has always been elite, but he used to be abit quicker and definitely more nimble/agile. He used to run more side PnR's now he tries to post up abit more on the wing and thats not something you can do to playoff teams so its a wasted skill on this team.

He hit 37% of his threes last season during the regular season and 46% in the playoffs... you are worried he's losing his shot? It seems to me that two seasons ago was just an anomaly.

slashsnake
08-22-2014, 11:13 PM
Let's stop using rings as an argument when comparing players who's teams were evidently much better than the other player.

That is a tough one. When talking about guys during their careers, or 2nd tier guys.. sure. But when talking about the best of the best, rings really do matter to me. To say you were the best player of the best team in the NBA is a big big statement for an all time great. I'd much rather side with that than the excuses of why another great failed to accomplish that.

To me, without the rings Duncan doesn't stand out nearly as much. Without the rings, Kobe is just a healthier TMac.

slashsnake
08-22-2014, 11:18 PM
Knowing Garnett never had an opportunity to win in Minnesota, i'm not going to give a title to him as the best scorer of his team too. And i don't remember me saying he didn't win as the best player on his team. But he was not the best player on the finals, actually hurting his team on offense in the first 3 games.

Eidt: Looking at it now, Kidd was Nets's 3rd most scorer in the regular season first finals year. First scorer the second year. Just an info.

Did you watch those finals? He was drawing the double like crazy in game 1. Basically forced Odom into foul trouble the first two games singlehandedly on offense. And both of those game he was dead on, kick it to Rondo and Rondo would hit the guy for the open shot. I swear I saw that happen 15 times in the first two games. The pass to assist when the double would slide over. Without that, there is no way they would have won those first two games of that series. He was HUGE on offense. Sure he missed some shots, but to say he was hurting them on offense is just stupid. Watch the game not the box score.

Raps18-19 Champ
08-23-2014, 12:45 AM
Whichever one Chris Paul is.

Kyben36
08-23-2014, 01:14 AM
basketball is soo much more than stats, that said, the Player X's A-T ratio is way too high to pass up. better steals, better rebounds, I would most likley take him. Higher shooting %, higher 3pt %, higher FT %, all the other guy really has him beat by is 1 ppg.

basketfan4life
08-25-2014, 03:10 AM
Did you watch those finals? He was drawing the double like crazy in game 1. Basically forced Odom into foul trouble the first two games singlehandedly on offense. And both of those game he was dead on, kick it to Rondo and Rondo would hit the guy for the open shot. I swear I saw that happen 15 times in the first two games. The pass to assist when the double would slide over. Without that, there is no way they would have won those first two games of that series. He was HUGE on offense. Sure he missed some shots, but to say he was hurting them on offense is just stupid. Watch the game not the box score.

I'm a Kobe fan. Dou you really think i didn't watch those games when my man made it to the finals after 4 years?

Clippersfan86
08-25-2014, 03:56 AM
This, If the so called "Best PG" can't win a title with the so called "Best PF" in the NBA then something is up, The team is damn good and have good role players along with a Top 3-5 coach. If he chokes or come up short again what other excuse can you give this guy for not making it to The Finals?

When people run with baseless narratives like this, it cracks me up. CP3 has been with the Clippers 3 years and had two semis exits, one 1st round exit. When the opponents you lose to are in the WCF all 3 years, that's nothing to be ashamed of. They lost to equal or better opponents all 3 years. This was the first year Blake was the best PF in the league arguably and the first year where DJ broke out. Also the first year where the Clippers had a legit coach. Even then, despite all the chaos of Sterling+injury problems consistently+first year under Doc... the Clippers pushed OKC (a higher seed BTW) to it's limits in the playoffs.

In other words, CP3 hasn't underachieved in a Clippers uniform at all. He did disappear later in the OKC series a bit, but there was so much more going on than that. This last year was the first year that the Clippers had a LEGIT chance to make the WCF or finals and they lost to a formidable OKC team that they outplayed most of the series.

IDunknown
08-25-2014, 10:49 PM
A blind taste test?

Shlumpledink
08-25-2014, 11:16 PM
The black one

Goose17
08-26-2014, 08:05 AM
The black one

Controversial.

IDunknown
08-26-2014, 02:07 PM
lol