20 Second Timeout

Doncic Eclipses Suns as Mavericks Reach the Western Conference Finals for the First Time Since 2011

Stunning. Unprecedented. Humiliating.

I am disinclined to use hyberbole, but I am at a loss to describe what the Dallas Mavericks did to the 64-18 Phoenix Suns in Phoenix in a 123-90 game seven rout. By the time Chris Paul--supposedly the best leader in the NBA--made his first field goal his Suns trailed by 40; the Suns were so far behind they couldn't see the Mavericks with a telescope, a time machine, or a fortune teller. 

I picked the Suns to win this series not because I have great faith in Paul, but because I thought that he had so much talent, depth, and versatility surrounding him that his predictable drop off in play would not prove fatal in this round. I was wrong about that.

Early in the second half, the score was 30-29--not the game score, but the Luka Doncic versus Phoenix score. That is Kobe Bryant-level domination; Bryant once outscored the Dallas Mavericks 62-61 for three quarters, but even Bryant did not do that in a playoff game, though it should be remembered that he did it against a Dallas team that reached the NBA Finals that season.

Doncic finished with 35 points on 12-19 field goal shooting. He played just 30 minutes and he sat out the entire fourth quarter, or else he could have scored 50 points. Doncic also led Dallas with 10 rebounds and four assists. Spencer Dinwiddie poured in 30 points off of the bench on 11-15 field goal shooting. Doncic and Dinwiddie are the first teammates to each score at least 30 points in a game seven since Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant did it a generation ago. Joel Embiid and James Harden are dreaming that someday they will play as well together in a game seven as Luka Doncic and Spencer Dinwiddie just did. Jalen Brunson added 24 points on 11-19 field goal shooting.

The Suns' statistics look like typographical errors. Cameron Johnson led them in scoring with 12 points. Devin Booker (11), Chris Paul (10), and Deandre Ayton (five) scored fewer combined points in 85 minutes than Doncic did. After the game, Suns Coach Monty Williams stated that Ayton's minutes were limited to 17 for "internal reasons," which is an interesting thing to say publicly after a game in which the minutes of many players--including Ayton--could have been limited due to poor performance. It sounds like something may be amiss in the Suns' locker room, which is a stunning development considering that the team's point guard is the best leader in the NBA.

Paul shot 4-8 from the field, Booker shot 3-14 from the field, and Ayton shot 2-5 from the field. That is 9-27 combined, which looks like a James Harden "concert tour" date, not the field goal percentages of an MVP candidate, the "Point God," and a player seeking a max contract. Those field goal made numbers and percentages sound like the punchline of a bad joke: what happened when an MVP candidate, a "Point God" and a player seeking a max contract showed up to play game seven at home? 4, 3, 2, and poof, they disappeared!

If anyone wondered who the best player in this series is, Doncic began loudly answering that question right after the opening tip, hitting a fadeaway jumper followed by two three pointers. Doncic led the Suns 8-3 and it was all downhill from there for the Suns. The Mavericks outscored the Suns 27-17 in the first quarter, but the second quarter was worse for the Suns: they were outscored 30-10. Paul played all 12 minutes in the second quarter, absorbing a -20 plus/minus number while "leading" the way with one point. There is a joke about the "Club Trillion" bench players who have a box score number of 1 minute played followed by a bunch of zeroes, as if they were trillionaires; Paul came perilously close to posting a second quarter boxscore number of 12 trillion, as his only non-zero numbers other than minutes were two missed field goals, 1-2 from the free throw line, and one foul. He had no rebounds, no assists, no steals, no blocked shots, and no turnovers. 

Am I belaboring the point? Am I making too much of one game? If you think so, then consider how much grief Kobe Bryant was given about his supposedly bad performance in the 2004 NBA Finals, when his injury-riddled Lakers lost 4-1 to the Detroit Pistons. Now, imagine that Bryant--whether as a 17 year old, a 27 year old, or a 37 year old--went into the playoffs leading a 64 win team and then lost by 33 points at home while the other team's star outscored his entire team for more than a half, and while Bryant put up a second quarter boxscore consisting of one point, no rebounds, no assists, no steals, and no blocked shots.

What do you suppose might have been said about Bryant after such a game? 

I say that players should be evaluated by the same standards. A player's legacy is not defined by one game, but by his overall resume. When I look at Bryant, I see a 5-2 Finals record, I see his team generally winning as the favorite and generally being competitive as the underdog. I see him putting up tremendous individual numbers on a consistent basis. For those reasons (and more), I put him in my pro basketball Pantheon.

When I look at Chris Paul, I see no championships despite playing for several excellent teams. I see his team losing more than once as the favorite. I see that no player in NBA history has blown more 2-0 playoff leads than Chris Paul, whose teams have squandered such an advantage five times: 2008 versus the Spurs, 2013 versus the Grizzlies, 2016 versus the Trail Blazers, 2021 versus the Bucks, and now 2022 versus the Mavericks. Paul's Clippers also blew a 3-1 lead versus the Houston Rockets in 2015; the Clippers split the first two games when Paul was out with an injury, but then after his return in game three they eventually lost three straight games. Paul is now 3-6 in game seven showdowns. 

In light of that evidence, I try to understand why "stat gurus" and media members pump up Paul to be more than he is. 

The harsh reality is that there is nowhere to hide in the playoffs. Players can inflate and manipulate their numbers to some extent in the regular season, and "stat gurus" team up with media members to craft agenda-based narratives advocating that those players receive various awards--but then the playoffs arrive, and every year we see Harden go on his "concert tour" and Paul cough up so many playoff leads his voice should sound like General Grievous in "Star Wars."

I've been saying this for well over a decade, but maybe people will pay attention now (I doubt it, but I'll keep trying anyway): Paul is an undersized player who consistently wears down and/or gets injured in the playoffs. He is a great player who has a lot of heart, but undersized players simply cannot be as valuable as players who are 6-6 and bigger who have comparable skills (let alone bigger players who also have superior skills). There is one player 6-3 or under in my pro basketball Pantheon: Jerry West, who would give the business to any other similarly-sized player in pro basketball history. Isiah Thomas did not quite reach Pantheon-level, but he led Detroit to back to back titles without having a teammate who made the NBA's 50th Anniversary Team, and he had a winning career record head to head against Bird, Magic, and Jordan. People who compare Paul favorably with Thomas have absolutely no idea how great Thomas was, and how durable he was until the very end of his career. 

Before the beatdown in the Valley of the Sun, Charles Barkley said that it is not fair to expect 37 year old Paul to be dominant, and that it is time for Booker and Ayton to step up. I agree with the second part of what Barkley said, but regarding the first part I don't understand how Paul can be touted as an MVP candidate for a good part of this season but then be given an age-based excuse for disappearing in the last five games of this series; that reminds me of how every tournament that Roger Federer won in his 30s supposedly proved that he was the greatest tennis player of all-time, while his losses were excused away based on his age. I agree that an over the hill player's performances should not impact his legacy, but you can't deem a player great one week and then give him an age-based excuse the next week, and then deem him great the week after that: there is no such thing as being over the hill, then not over the hill, then over the hill again. Federer in his 30s was not declining as much as he was just not as good as Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic (which was also true before Federer hit his 30s, particularly regarding Nadal). 

As for Paul, his teams gagged up leads in playoff series when he was young, they did it when he was in his prime, and they have done it the past two years. This pattern has nothing to do with age; this pattern has to do with size, and how size impacts both durability and matchups. Paul can be worn down physically because he is small, he can be abused by bigger players when he plays defense, and bigger players can smother him when he plays offense.

Sunday's meltdown is yet another example of why people need to stop reciting the fairy tale about how Houston was "one healthy Chris Paul hamstring" away from winning the championship in 2018. Anyone who does not understand now that Paul always has worn down in the playoffs and always will wear down in the playoffs will never understand it. If Paul had stayed healthy, the Rockets would have either lost that series anyway, or they would have lost in the Finals, even if they took a 2-0 lead like Paul's Suns did last year. 

Why do I blast Chris Paul and James Harden but praise Giannis Antetokounmpo, whose Milwaukee Bucks lost by almost the same margin in game seven as Paul's Suns did? Let's count the reasons, first focusing on Paul and Antetokounmpo:

1) The Bucks lost game seven on the road after playing the entire series without their second best player, Khris Middleton; the Suns lost at home despite being at full strength.

2) The Bucks did not get blown out from the start, but rather were competitive for most of the game until the Celtics' superior depth and three point shooting proved to be too much; the Suns trailed 57-27 at halftime, by which point Doncic had outscored Paul 27-1. With Paul leading the way, the Suns' starters posted these first half scoring totals: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. I am not making that up. As I often say about Paul, if he is the best leader then I would hate to see what would happen with the worst leader; to me, leadership in a team sport is defined by team success, so the best leaders in the NBA in the post-Michael Jordan era are Tim Duncan (five championships) and Kobe Bryant (five championships). Steve Nash is a really nice guy, and Chris Paul is a really feisty guy, but the two players who media members most often call great leaders played a combined 35 seasons and produced one losing NBA Finals appearance (the 2-0 lead blown by Paul's Suns last year). Sorry, but that is not great leadership: that is two undersized guards who accomplished some wonderful things but were not able to beat teams led by bigger and better players.

3) Paul was a no show from start until garbage time, while Antetokounmpo had 25 points, 20 rebounds, and nine assists, a strong effort that was not enough to make up for Middleton's absence.

Regarding Harden, he fled Oklahoma City because he did not want to be the third option, he feuded with every star player with whom he has played, he whined his way out of Houston after quitting on the team, he whined his way out of Brooklyn after quitting on the team, and he has perhaps the worse elimination game track record of any player who has been so highly decorated and lavishly lauded. 

Luka Doncic right now has still not reached his peak, but as a versatile 6-6, 240 pound multi-position threat he is already better than Chris Paul ever was or ever could be. That is not a knock on Paul so much as it is a statement of basketball reality: the great 6-6 player is better than the great 6-0 player every time, and even more so in game seven. The bigger concern for Suns' fans is to figure out if Booker's disappearing act in this game is just an aberration, or a sign that Doncic is just the superior player. Booker is big enough and talented enough to be a legit MVP candidate. Paul's disappearance does not surprise me, but Booker's disappearance is more troubling. Ayton may not have Booker's upside, but he has made it clear that he wants a max deal; his game seven performance and the "internal reasons" concerning his limited minutes should also concern Suns' fans.

Labels: Chris Paul, Dallas Mavericks, Devin Booker, Jalen Brunson, Luka Doncic, Phoenix Suns, Spencer Dinwiddie

posted by David Friedman @ 2:46 AM

4 comments