Chris Paul Scores 41 Points as Suns Obliterate and Eliminate Clippers
Chris Paul had a playoff career high-tying 41 points on 16-24 field goal shooting, plus eight assists, four rebounds, three steals, and no turnovers as his Phoenix Suns routed the L.A. Clippers 130-103 to win the Western Conference Finals 4-2 and advance to the NBA Finals for the first time since 1993. The Suns led 66-57 at halftime and then pushed that advantage to 89-72 in the third quarter before the Clippers rallied to pull within seven, 89-82. Paul scored eight points in the final 1:28 of the third quarter to extend the Suns' lead to 97-83 heading into the last stanza, and he poured in 19 fourth quarter points as the Clippers mounted little resistance in the closing 12 minutes. Devin Booker added 22 points, though he shot just 10-26 from the field. Deandre Ayton contributed 16 points on 8-10 field goal shooting, plus a game-high 17 rebounds. Jae Crowder, the only Suns player with NBA Finals experience, scored 19 points. Marcus Morris Sr. led the Clippers with 26 points, while Paul George had 21 points on 6-15 field goal shooting after scoring 41 points in game five as the Clippers extended the series with a win in Phoenix.
The Suns have clinched three playoff series in a row on the road, knocking off the defending champion Lakers and the 2021 NBA regular season MVP (Denver's Nikola Jokic) along the way. That is impressive and worthy of praise, and it does not diminish the value of those accomplishments to point out that the Lakers were without Anthony Davis for most of the series, that the Nuggets were without Jamal Murray for the entire series, and that the Clippers were without Kawhi Leonard for the entire Western Conference Finals after Leonard suffered a knee injury in game four of the Clippers' 4-2 second round win versus the Utah Jazz, the team with the best regular season record in the NBA. The Suns have no control over who they face in the playoffs, so it is not their fault that they have eliminated three teams that were missing top level players.
Paul shot .420 or worse from
the field in two of those series, though it should be noted that he
shot .627 from the field as Phoenix swept Denver in the second round. Paul missed the first two games of the Western Conference Finals due to the NBA's COVID-19 protocols, but he has played better in each game since he returned to action, as his field goal percentage shows: .263 in game three, .273 in game four, .421 in game five, .667 in game six. Of course, those numbers also show that for most of the series he was either out of action or not particularly efficient, and that the Suns were able to overcome those absences and inefficient performances to be in position to close out the series in game six. Paul chose wisely when he decided to go to Phoenix, even if that was not fully apparent until the 2021 playoffs.
Booker is leading the Suns in playoff scoring (27.0 ppg) by nearly 9 ppg
over Paul while also ranking second on the team in both rebounding (6.4
rpg) and assists (4.8 apg). Ayton is a beast in the paint. The addition of Paul to a team that went 8-0 in the "bubble" last summer was the final piece, but it is more than a bit deceptive for anyone to act like Paul has turned a losing team into a contender; the Suns were rising before the addition of Paul, and Paul has made the most of the opportunity to play alongside Booker and Ayton.
Paul is a great player, but for some reason he gets more credit for his (limited) playoff success and less blame for his (extensive) playoff failure than other great players do. It is obvious and indisputable that Paul authored a tremendous performance in game six, but that is part of a larger legacy, and does not define his career--particularly if this playoff run does not result in a title. Many media members have a strange way of quantifying leadership. If our mission is to go to point Z, and our leader only takes us to point M, then it is difficult to rationally argue that our leader is a better leader than someone who led his team to point Z five times--or, to put it more bluntly, when I think about the best leaders in the NBA in the post-Jordan era, I think about Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, and LeBron James. Each of those guys has/had a different leadership style, but each played a major role in multiple championship runs; love them or hate them, they led their teams to point Z. Chris Paul is in his 16th season, and this will be his first NBA Finals appearance. You may retort that Paul has not always had the best supporting cast around him, but the reality is that he has had a lot of talent around him in multiple organizations while spending most of his career losing in the second round or earlier; either his leadership has been overrated, or leadership itself does not matter as much as raw talent. I am not saying that Paul is not a good leader, but the popular notion that he is the best leader in the NBA is not supported by the most important evidence: sustained team performance at an elite level.
Also, Paul's greatness does not make his flopping and other antics acceptable; to the contrary, as a great player he should be above
all of that. It continues to surprise me that referees apparently do not resent or push back against players like Paul and James Harden who get away with flopping. If I were a referee (or the league office), I would have a very jaundiced view of players who put so much effort into fooling the referees. It is one thing to draw attention to the fact that you have been fouled; well-coached players know that if they are hit they should yell or gesture to make sure that the referees are aware of the contact. It is quite another thing to fall down like you have been shot after minimal to no contact; that is not calling attention to a foul, but rather attempting to cheat the game.
In game six, Paul's antics resulted in a technical foul being called against DeMarcus Cousins, though Paul missed the resulting free throw (as Rasheed Wallace would say, "Ball don't lie!"). Also, Paul apparently said something to Patrick Beverley after the Suns blew the game open, and Beverley reacted by pushing Paul in the back. Paul laughed and clapped his hands after Beverley was ejected. That play is an example of Paul being an instigator and Beverley being an idiot.
Speaking of Beverley, the Clippers have a lot of hotheads/big talkers who disappear under pressure; we saw that during the 2020 playoffs when the Clippers melted down after taking a 3-1 lead versus Denver, and we ultimately saw that again after Leonard got hurt, as the Clippers lost two of their last three home games versus Phoenix. Leonard was averaging 30.4 ppg with a playoff career high .573 field goal percentage before the knee injury knocked him out of action.
Russell Westbrook summed up Beverley a while ago, telling the media that Beverley has fooled them by running around all over the court without doing much. Beverley's story--which starts with the academic fraud that he committed to end his college career, and then involved many stops before he made it to the NBA--is oft-repeated in admiring tones, but the main thing that I see Beverley do is make cheap and dangerous plays that could cause injuries (and sometimes have). Paul is annoying, but Beverley's cheap shot push to Paul's back does not demonstrate the toughness that so many people attribute to Beverley: a skilled and tough NBA player would have contained Paul when it counted, not pushed him from behind with the game over. Pushing a player from behind when you know that referees, coaches and others will jump in between so that the player you pushed does not even have a chance to get in your face is a cowardly and soft act. It is often said that no one would want to mess with Beverley. Why? Name one actual tough guy who would be afraid of someone who thinks that it is smart and tough to push an opponent from behind. True toughness has a lot more to do with mentality than physical attributes; a player who gets torched when it matters and then delivers a cheap shot to get ejected rather than face the music like a man is not a true tough guy.
It will be interesting to see who the Suns face in the NBA Finals, but both of their prospective opponents have already seen their best players go down with injuries that have been serious enough to cause those players to miss action (and it is not clear when/if either player will return to action). Will the Suns become the first team to win an NBA title in the four round format without facing a single team in the playoffs whose best player was even close to full health?
Labels: Chris Paul, Deandre Ayton, Devin Booker, L.A. Clippers, Paul George, Phoenix Suns
posted by David Friedman @ 2:23 AM
12 Comments:
I hate to say asterisk but I can't remember so many star players going down in the playoffs ever.
That said, the Suns are the most complete and healthy team remaining. They should win this if everything goes to plan.
I completely agree on the CP3 points. Can't stand the flopping and acting, it's frankly embarrassing to watch (same goes for Lebron and AD). That said, if he puts up a few more 40 point games, he'll have a championship that no one can take away.
I do believe if the Suns win the title then it should have an asterisk. They can only face who they have in front of them, but if every team they face in each round is missing a top player then the title can't be impressive. Some people say that the Lakers title in 2020 should have an asterisk. Some say the 1999 Spurs should have an asterisk. I disagree. I believe all of the teams had a fair chance those years. If another team would have won people would have been saying their title deserved an asterisk as well.
I believe Chris Paul deserves some blame for some of his teams' playoff failures through the years. In 2014 and especially in 2015. His time in Houston, Golden State was just better.
Now Paul was an mvp candidate this season? Do you believe he deserved to be an mvp candidate? Do you believe he is the best player on the Suns? Do you think he is a superstar/mvp calibur player at this stage of his career like LeBron is? Being an mvp candidate this year could be an example of him getting too much credit for team success as you stated.
Speaking of a superstar, I believe that word is overused.
Do you believe Devin Booker as of now is a true superstar, or a borderline superstar type?
Anonymous:
I also hate putting an asterisk by any accomplishment that is not tainted by someone violating the rules, but I agree that if any NBA title deserves an asterisk it would be this one.
Before last year's playoffs, I anticipated that my prediction accuracy percentage might take a hit because there was so much pandemic-related randomness, but I actually did OK; I had the same feeling prior to this year's playoffs, and I may struggle to pick half of the series correctly. I probably underestimated the Suns to some extent even without factoring in the injuries, but if all of the teams were at full strength then Phoenix would not have been the second seed and probably would have lost in the first round. The Suns are a very good team, but if they win the title they will not rank near the top among the championship teams.
AW:
Paul has been overrated by both "stat gurus" and many media members for a long time, dating all the way back to the 2008 MVP race when some pundits argued with a straight face that Paul was better than Kobe Bryant.
I believe that Booker is the Suns' best player and that the Suns do not have a superstar/MVP caliber player. Booker could become an MVP-caliber player but I don't think that he is quite there yet. To label him as such would be to say that I would take him over healthy Antetokounmpo, Durant, LeBron, Kawhi, and Jokic. No way would I do that, and I would not place Booker sixth, either. The notion that Paul is as good as any of those players is ludicrous. Paul has bounced back to All-Star caliber form after looking like he was close to being washed up, but to assert anything beyond that is demonstrably false.
David, AW, I understand people feeling the need to put an asterisk next to this season's champion. Most cite the excessive amount of injuries to all-star caliber players and blame the truncated offseason followed by a game-heavy schedule. While, there is certainly some truth to this, I posit a counterargument.
First and foremost, is that most of the guys that got injured...are injury prone. Kawhi Leonard. Anthony Davis. Kyrie Irving. Mike Conley. All of them have checkered injury histories, so much so that injuries for each are expected. Conley, Kawhi, and Kyrie have only played in 72% of their career total games, and each of them missed essentially an entire season with a major injury at some point over the past 4 seasons. AD has only played in 78% of career total games.
The Lakers, Clippers, and Nets all rolled the dice that their top players would remain healthy...and none of them did. And, it's really not surprising that none of them did. What is surprising is how much people expected them to, when all the evidence was against it. KD was coming back from nearly 2 seasons off and an Achilles injury. Lebron James is 36 with 50k minutes played on his legs. James Harden took the entire offseason off...got out of shape to prove a point to Houston, and then jumped back to playing like he had last season...boom! Hamstring injury (he reaped what he sowed imo).
Jamal Murray, as a smallish guard, definitely was impacted by the truncated seasons. Same could be said about Donovan Mitchell. But Giannis and Trae had freak injuries. Just bad bad luck on where and how they landed.
There is obvious upside to having top-heavy teams. But, the downside is susceptibility to injury. On the other side of the token, there is upside to having a deep roster, and the teams that remain are all evidence of that.
Whoever wins the championship this year, deserves to be considered a full champion without any asterisk. The Bucks have been knocking on the door for the past 3 seasons. The Suns and Hawks have young up-and-coming superstars (Booker is not there yet, but is on the right trajectory) with deep, young, and talented rosters. If Ayton continues his development trajectory, he will be a top 5 center at worst, maybe as soon as next season, but certainly by the time he hits his prime. Mikal Bridges, Cam Johnson, and Cameron Payne have all shown year-to-year improvement. Same for Trae, John Collins, Cam Reddish, DeAndre Hunter, and Kevin Huerter on the Hawks.
It is realistic to look at both the Suns and Hawks rosters and see plenty of room for continued growth. What they've built is sustainable and their franchises should have future expectations of reaching the conference finals (at least) over the next few seasons.
I believe if and when they prove their worth over the next 2-3 seasons (as the Bucks have done), people will forget about the asterisk. I mean, the Suns and Hawks all went through crazy things this season just like the other 28 teams.
I for one, like deep teams and hope the NBA continues forward with an 82 game season. Tying up max contract cap on players that play 70% of games, who need to be load managed, or who crumble to injury -- are not deserving of the max and only degrade the quality of the NBA product.
Jordan:
You make some good points, and I have already said that I am disinclined to agree with placing an asterisk by any championship not tainted by rule-breaking, but the injury situation this year is unprecedented. Further, not all of the injured stars are historically injury-prone. LeBron, Giannis, and Harden have been durable throughout their careers. It is too early to know if Trae Young is injury-prone. Regarding the injury-prone players who you mentioned, even though each individual case may not be surprising in isolation, the collective amount of injuries to All-Star players during this year's playoffs has never been seen before, and this is not the first era that featured a few injury-prone All-Stars.
If the Bucks win the title--which is the outcome that I predicted prior to the playoffs--then there is little case for an asterisk, because the Bucks have been contenders for several years and they demonstrably strengthened their roster prior to this season. However, the Suns are a team that came out of nowhere, and their roster looks inferior compared to most of the recent championship teams. In a "normal" year, the Suns would have been a fourth or fifth seed and would have lost in the second round. The Lakers, Clippers, Nuggets, and Jazz clearly have better teams when at full strength, but the Suns beat three of those four teams when each team was missing at least one All-Star.
Similarly, the Hawks were the fifth seed this year but beat an inexperienced Knicks team and then got past the 76ers, who had a hobbled Embiid. At midseason the Hawks were a sub-.500 team, so I am not buying the idea that this team evolved into championship contention over several years; the coaching change helped speed up the process, but a favorable playoff draw was the biggest help, and the only way that the Hawks will get by the Bucks is if Giannis is out while Young comes back. The Bucks clearly have the better and more physical team, as we saw in game five when both teams' number one options did not play. So, if the Hawks somehow win the 2021 title that is definitely an aberration, whether or not an asterisk is applied literally or figuratively.
David,
In 2008 Paul deserved strong consideration for the mvp award. Kobe was the right choice in my opinion though.
With or without a title, I have Chris Paul as a top ten point guard of all time.
If the Suns win the title, then Booker most likely would be considered a superstar. Especially if he wins finals mvp.
As we both know a team can win a title without a true supertar/mvp under the right circumstances.
AW:
I had Paul third behind Kobe and LeBron in 2008, but I had Kobe and LeBron a level above everyone else.
Regarding top 10 pgs all-time, here is an alphabetical list of the pgs on my 50 Greatest Players List:
Cousy
Curry
Frazier
Iverson
Johnson (Magic)
Kidd
Maravich
Robertson
Stockton
Thomas
West
So, Paul is not in my top 10.
Few teams have won a title without a superstar. In the shot clock era, probably only Seattle (1979) and Detroit (2004) qualify, depending how one defines superstar. I would define a superstar as an MVP candidate and/or perennial All-NBA First Team caliber player. Some might argue that Dennis Johnson and Ben Wallace met those criteria for Seattle and Detroit respectively.
The injury situation is indeed unprecedented this year, and it's been less fun to watch a playoffs that sometimes resembles the Hunger Games.
But if you start putting asterisks on championships (and I know David has said he doesn't advocate that here; responding to some other commenters) where do you stop?
If memory serves, the Pistons' 1989 championship came against a powerhouse Lakers team that had lost Magic Johnson, James Worthy, and I think one other key player (Byron Scott?) to injury. Now, the Pistons were an excellent team with more pedigree than the Suns, and they got through a tough set of teams in the East. But even so, the championship series, against a team that had beaten them the prior year, was a joke. Do they deserve an asterisk? (To be clear: my answer is an unequivocal "no.")
The Bulls, one of the best dynasties ever, also seemed to benefit (in my opinion, anyway) from an unusual absence of other truly great teams in the league during much of their run. Should we value their championships as lesser than those of, say, the 80's-era Celtics or Lakers? (Of course we shouldn't.)
All the teams I've mentioned were more talented than the Suns--that's not my point. But every year and every era is different, and luck/injuries/officiating always play some role. Absent cheating, a championship is a championship. Full stop.
Anonymous:
As you mentioned, I have stated for the record that I oppose attaching a literal or figurative asterisk to any championship or record that is accomplished without breaking the rules.
You are correct that the Pistons won their first title against a Lakers team that suffered injuries to Magic Johnson and Byron Scott. Of course, the Pistons established themselves as contenders both before and after that series. It remains to be seen what the future holds for the Suns. The Bucks have been contenders for at least three years, and--if they stay healthy and keep this roster intact--I could see this team winning more than one title.
After Jordan started winning titles, the only team that broke through while he was a Bull was the Rockets, and Jordan never faced the Rockets in a playoff series (the Magic beat Jordan's Bulls after Jordan came back late in '95, but then Jordan's Bulls smashed the Magic in the '96 playoffs). So, did the Jordan/Pippen Bulls face relatively weak competition or were they just dominant? They won multiple playoff series against teams that featured at least one of the NBA's 50 Greatest Players (Pistons, Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Knicks, Magic, Jazz).
So, I agree that "a championship is a championship." Ranking the greatest champions is a separate (and complex) subject, but whoever wins the 2021 championship is on the champions list forever.
Your list of the top 10 point guards of all time is interesting. Iverson was a shooting guard for like the first eight years of his career. West played both.
If the Suns win the title does Paul move into your top ten point guard list?
AW:
There were a few seasons early in Iverson's career when you could argue that Eric Snow was the team's point guard--even though Snow regularly guarded the opposing shooting guard--but for most of Iverson's career he was his team's point guard. Iverson's ability to play both positions is not a drawback.
Similarly, West could play either position, but for most of his career he was his team's primary playmaker, including one season when he led the league in assists.
If you accept--at least for the sake of this conversation--the notion that Iverson and West belong on the point guard list, who would you take out of my top 11 to include Paul? Just to be clear, the above list was not my top 10, but a list of the 11 point guards who I included in my 50 Greatest Players List, the point being that Paul is not in my top 10 (or top 11).
A championship enhances Paul's resume--particularly if he continues to play at a high level--but eight of the 11 players on my list won at least one title, and five of them won at least two titles, so one championship is not vaulting Paul all the way up my list. Do you think that any of the players on my list could not have taken the Suns to the 2021 NBA Finals given the same set of circumstances? Booker is an All-NBA caliber player, and Ayton is not too far behind that status. Iverson reached the Finals with Mutombo and a bunch of role players--and anyone who is going to argue that the East was supposedly weak that year also has to acknowledge that the teams the Suns beat this year were weakened by injury. We never got to see Maravich play with a great supporting cast during his (short) healthy prime, but I believe that Maravich would have been a champion in the right circumstances. Stockton would have feasted in the same areas of the court that Paul currently feasts, and Stockton was much more durable than Paul. I think that we can agree that each of the eight champions on my list could replace Paul on the Suns with no problem.
There is a tendency to react as if not calling a player "the greatest" is equivalent to "hating" that player (I do not mean to suggest that you are necessarily doing that). Chris Paul is a great player, whether or not he wins a title this year (or ever). I have explained in various articles why I would not rank Paul ahead of the point guards listed above. That said, I don't consider it crazy or absurd to rank Paul among the top 10 point guards of all-time or among the 50 Greatest Players of all-time, but I respectfully disagree with ranking him that highly.
Post a Comment
<< Home