Assessing Chris Paul's Legacy and Leadership
The L.A. Clippers parted ways with 40 year old Chris Paul in an unusual but in retrospect not surprising middle of the night move, informing Paul that his services are no longer desired. The Clippers can waive Paul and eat his $3.6 million salary, agree to a buyout, or wait until December 15 to trade him (due to the NBA's arcane salary cap rules), but until those details are decided the team has sent him home in a move that strongly suggests that he was not merely unproductive (2.9 ppg on .321 field goal shooting in 16 games this season) but also a toxic locker room presence; there is no other reason to deal so harshly and abruptly with an established, veteran player, let alone one who will deservedly be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Paul recently announced that he planned to retire after this season, so this sudden end--or at least interruption--of his farewell tour brings to mind the scene in "Forget Paris" when Kareem Abdul-Jabbar told Billy Crystal (who played an NBA referee in the movie) that he can't eject him because he is on his farewell tour, and Crystal snarled, "Let me be the first to say, 'Farewell!'"
In his prime, Chris Paul was an elite playmaker, a deadly midrange shooter, and a feisty, crafty defensive player. He earned his selection to the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team with an impressive resume that includes four All-NBA First Team selections (2008, 2012-14), and five All-Defensive First Team selections (2012-16). He led the NBA in steals six times (2008-09, 2011-14), and he ranks second all-time in total regular season steals (2728). Paul led the NBA in assists five times (2008-09, 2014-15, 2022), and he ranks second all-time in total regular season assists (12,552).
However, no history of NBA stat padding is complete without an extensive chapter on Chris Paul's inflated assist totals, and it is shameful that the NBA selectively corrects some statistical errors (including taking away bogus triple doubles from LeBron James in 2006, 2009 and 2014) while letting other statistical errors remain in the record books (including Paul's inflated assist totals). These inflated numbers matter and they affect the legacies of multiple players because Paul is credited with breaking many assist records in the regular season and the playoffs.
Proving that Paul's assist totals are inflated does not mean that he was not a great passer; two things can be true at the same time: Paul was a great passer, and Paul's assist numbers are inflated.
Paul is often lavishly praised as a great leader. The way that the Clippers jettisoned Paul is just the latest piece of evidence that Paul's leadership has been vastly overrated by media members who are either gullible or who push preferred narratives regardless of what the facts show.
In Notes About the 2020 Christmas Day Quintupleheader, I compared the leadership styles of Chris Paul, LeBron James, and Giannis Antetokounmpo:
Perceptions and descriptions of leadership are interesting. Giannis Antetokounmpo is a great leader, regardless of whether or not media members have figured that out yet.
Charles Barkley so often says that Chris Paul is the best leader in the NBA that this has become a running joke during TNT's telecasts. LeBron James is also often lauded as a great leader. These characterizations are puzzling. Paul has hopped from team to team, and he is often at odds with his teammates and/or coaches. Paul's vaunted leadership has not resulted in a single NBA Finals appearance, let alone a championship. When someone is called a great leader but his teams have not accomplished much it is fair and logical to ask: "Where exactly is this great leader leading his followers?" Paul is a great but undersized point guard. He demands a lot from those around him, which can be a good thing at times, but his leadership has not had the same impact or generated the same results as many other better leaders have achieved during his tenure in the NBA.
James is on the short list of candidates for the title of greatest basketball player of all-time--but neither his greatness as a player nor his charitable endeavors off of the court prove that he is a great basketball leader. LeBron James' failures as a leader are well-documented, although many media members prefer to downplay these facts.
Giannis Antetokounmpo is a better leader than LeBron James or Chris Paul. Antetokounmpo works hard, he encourages his teammates, and he is not looking for shortcuts. Consider his response to questions about why he re-signed with Milwaukee now as oppose to waiting and testing free agency. Antetokounmpo said that if he had delayed his decision then this would have put tremendous pressure and scrutiny on his teammates, who would have had to constantly worry about and talk about whether or not he would stay. Antetokounmpo said that if he had waited then he would have harmed his teammates and squandered a season during the prime of his career when he and his teammates have a chance to reach their ultimate goal: winning an NBA title.
It is impossible to imagine LeBron James or Chris Paul answering that question that way, or conducting themselves in that way. James has won four championships and four Finals MVPs; no one can question his greatness as a player, not can anyone question his ability to raise a team's level--but James has also presided over the implosion of multiple teams, and he wasted prime years during his first stint in Cleveland: just imagine what might have happened if he had fully committed to the Cavaliers franchise and helped to build the program as opposed to always having one foot out the door before eventually fleeing to Miami.
In contrast, Antetokounmpo has a finely honed sense of urgency and sense of the moment; every game is precious, every season is precious, and you cannot afford to waste games or seasons because you think that you are heading toward greener pastures. Antetokounmpo gets it. James has been successful despite lacking those qualities at times, not because he consistently displays those qualities. In other words, James is so talented that he and his teams are sometimes able to overcome his flawed leadership style.
Isiah Thomas joined an awful team and helped to build a two-time champion. Michael Jordan joined an awful team and helped to build a dynasty. Antetokounmpo is a throwback to that kind of wonderful old school mentality.
A few months after I wrote those words, Antetokounmpo led the Bucks to their first NBA title since 1971, beating Paul's Phoenix Suns in the NBA Finals. Antetokounmpo won a championship without whining about his teammates or coach, and without forming (or jumping to) a super team. Antetokounmpo has been a great leader throughout his 13 seasons in Milwaukee, and even if he finishes his career with another team that will not diminish what he did in and for Milwaukee. After Paul scored a playoff career-high tying 41 points to lift the Suns into the 2021 NBA Finals, I explained why that one great performance does not change his overall resume:
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.
It may seem like I contradicted myself about James' leadership abilities in those two passages, so I should clarify that I don't think that James is as great a leader as many people say that he is, but I think that he is a better leader than Paul and I think that--despite his documented leadership failures at times--his leadership played a role in championship runs, which contrasts with Paul's leadership style that often led to internal problems on his teams.
Regarding "sustained team performance at an elite level," Paul posted a 12-15 career record in playoff series. Here are the career playoff series records of some notable point guards, listed in approximate chronological order (some careers overlapped):Bob Cousy 16-8 (won six NBA championships)
Oscar Robertson 8-9 (won one NBA championship)
Jerry West 16-12 (won one NBA championship)
Walt Frazier 11-6 (won two NBA championships)
Magic Johnson 32-8 (won five NBA championships)
Isiah Thomas 16-7 (won two NBA championships)
John Stockton 17-19
Jason Kidd 16-16 (won one NBA championship)
Steve Nash 11-12
Allen Iverson 6-8
Tony Parker 30-12 (won four NBA championships)
Russell Westbrook 12-13
Derrick Rose 4-7
Stephen Curry 24-6 (won four NBA championships)
Kyrie Irving 15-6 (won one NBA championship)
Contextual factors beyond any one player's control affect team results, but there is little evidence that Paul is a great leader and a lot of evidence that teams he led imploded with him at the helm. For example, in the 2022 playoffs, Paul's Phoenix Suns lost game seven in the second round to the Dallas Mavericks, 123-90. Here is how I described the massacre:
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 added the following:
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 3-5 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...
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.
That game seven was not an isolated debacle. As mentioned above, Paul's teams have a history of playoff self-destruction:
Paul's teams have blown five 2-0 series leads, his Clippers squandered a 3-1 lead versus the Rockets in 2015, his game seven record is 3-5, and--as noted above--his Suns disappeared in game seven at home versus Dallas last year. Every time Paul loses, excuses proliferate like weeds in an unmaintained yard.
Paul's poor leadership is revealed in other ways. Without any evidence supporting his assertions, Paul has repeatedly trashed the public reputation of Scott Foster, who consistently grades as one of the NBA's top referees, a topic that I discussed in Blaming A Referee for Losing After Posting a "Triple Single" is Not Great Leadership:
Paul is often called the best leader in the NBA, and he is the current President of the NBA Players Association. Paul is attacking the credibility of an employer who pays him millions of dollars per year as part of a multi-billion dollar business that is based in no small part on the credibility of the competition between teams; without that credibility, the NBA is not in the sports business but rather in show business (maybe that business model would still work--it has worked for pro wrestling for decades--but that has never been the NBA's business model, and fans of pure basketball would be repulsed if the outcomes of games were proved to be predetermined)...
Great leaders do not attack the credibility of the business that feeds their families. Great leaders do not insist on playing if their level of play is harming the team.
The media narratives about players such as Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, Stephen Curry, and others are fascinating to observe. Chris Paul is supposedly a great leader even after he posts a "triple single" with an awful plus/minus number while "leading" his favored team to a blowout loss.
Russell Westbrook is supposedly a terrible leader even though he helped turn around the season of a not particularly talented team that was devastated by COVID-19 and various injuries. Yesterday, after Westbrook--who was a game-time decision due to an ankle injury--posted 26 points, 12 rebounds, and 10 assists (team-high numbers in all three categories) in Washington's 132-103 game three loss to Philadelphia at least one commentator called this an "empty" triple double. You can be sure that if Westbrook put up Chris Paul-like numbers of seven points, six assists, and five rebounds then that same commentator would have attacked Westbrook for quitting. Westbrook had as many rebounds in that game as Paul has in three games versus the Lakers! Westbrook's plus/minus number (-15) was better than the plus/minus number of every Washington starter except for Alex Len, whose plus/minus number was -14 in just 11 minutes. The Wizards are the eighth seeded team playing the number one seeded team, but Westbrook had a great game while playing hurt against a superior team. Paul is on course to lead his second seeded team to defeat while playing terribly. Who is the better player and better leader? This is not just about one season or three playoff games; the numbers and the true narrative (not the media's fictional narrative) are consistent throughout both players' careers. Westbrook was an All-NBA Team level performer for four teams that reached the Western Conference Finals, including one team that made it to the NBA Finals. He is currently tied for third on the all-time playoff list with 11 triple doubles (matching Jason Kidd, and trailing only Magic Johnson's 30 and LeBron James' 28). It would be fascinating to look up the media coverage of other playoff triple doubles to see how many have been described as "empty." Granted, the same commentator who called Westbrook's triple double "empty" also called Jimmy Butler's triple double "empty"--but Butler posted 12 points on 4-15 field goal shooting with 10 rebounds, 10 assists, and a -18 plus/minus number in a 17 point loss as his sixth seeded Heat were swept by the third seeded Bucks to become one of the few Conference champions ever swept in the next year's playoffs. There is no comparison between how Butler played and how Westbrook played; lumping those two performances together is intellectually lazy, at best.
Stephen Curry is lauded as a top three MVP candidate for leading his team to "play out" (instead of "play in") to the playoffs despite having two opportunities to win one game to qualify for the playoffs. Damian Lillard has recently pointed out that last season his own MVP candidacy was dismissed because of his team's low playoff seeding, and Lillard said that to be consistent the media should not tout Curry as this season's MVP. My consistent take is that Lillard was not a legit MVP candidate last season, nor is Curry a legit MVP candidate this season. I agree with Lillard that the media's MVP narratives are not consistent or fair.
Paul's obsession with bashing Foster betrays a sense of entitlement that the NBA never put in check:
Paul acts like he feels entitled to say whatever he wants to say and act however he wants to act without facing any consequences. He refuses to take responsibility for his actions, and instead casts aspersions on Foster.
Foster is the easy target here. As the saying goes, the fans don't buy tickets to see the referees but to see star players. However, based on what we saw and heard there was nothing unusual about the ejection. If Paul truly believes that Foster is biased against him, then why did Paul keep talking after getting a technical foul? It must be emphasized that Foster walked away after issuing the first technical foul; this is not Jake O'Donnell versus Clyde Drexler or Hue Hollins versus Scottie Pippen/the Chicago Bulls, instances when officiating bias was an obvious pattern. O'Donnell's grudges against multiple players led to him losing his job despite grading out highly, while Hollins' bias was so obvious that his name was the first one that came to many people's minds when the story first broke about an unnamed referee (who later turned out to be Tim Donaghy) intentionally making wrong calls.
Paul has publicly created a narrative that Foster has a grudge against him without providing any proof, knowing full well that he is immune from consequences because Foster will not be permitted by the NBA to publicly respond. Why should media members or fans believe Paul? Paul has proven to be both a cheap shot artist and a whiner throughout his career, and there are many players around the league who have feuded with him, including both teammates and opponents. I am not aware of a single other player accusing Foster of bias, and Foster consistently grades out as a top referee. I watch a lot of NBA games, and while my focus is much more on the players and the coaches than the referees I have never felt that Foster is incompetent or biased.
It has become popular to suggest that the NBA should never assign Foster to officiate a game involving Paul's team. That is nonsense. If Foster grades out well enough to officiate the NBA Finals and Paul is fortunate enough to be carried to the NBA Finals by Stephen Curry then how can the league take that assignment away from Foster? No, the answer here is simple: if there is objective evidence that Foster is nursing a grudge that prevents him from officiating Paul in an unbiased manner then the NBA should fire Foster--and if there is no evidence of that, then the NBA should fine Paul for his comments, and make it clear that if he makes additional comments questioning the integrity of the officiating then he will be suspended. That is how former Commissioner David Stern would have quashed this nonsense that current Commissioner Adam Silver has allowed to fester for several years. If Paul is correct that the NBA organized a meeting with Paul, Foster, and others then the outcome of that meeting should have been an understanding that Paul's job is to play, Foster's job is to officiate objectively, and that if this ever becomes a public issue again then the person at fault is going to be disciplined by the league. Instead, Silver is letting one of these guys--and my strong suspicion is that the culprit is Paul--make a mockery of the league.
It is fascinating and revealing to observe so many media members covering the release of a 40 year old player averaging 2.9 ppg as if the move is an inexplicable decision and a disrespectful action. Chris Paul is an old, poor performing player on a losing team, and he reportedly is not on speaking terms with coach Ty Lue. Lue is a championship-winning coach, and he does not need advice or so-called "leadership" from a washed up 40 year old player who has never won a championship.
Leadership is about results, which means uplifting those around you individually and collectively. Leadership is about setting an example of personal accountability. Leadership is not about empty slogans or about narratives unsupported by facts. In his prime, Chris Paul was a talented and hard-working player, and he accomplished a lot for an undersized player--but the objective evidence demonstrates that he was not the leader that so many people hyped him to be. The value that he provided during his peak seasons was that he was a great passer, an excellent midrange shooter, and a gritty defensive player; he no longer provides great passing, shooting, or defense, and thus the Clippers parted ways with Paul precisely because Paul provides no value to a team beyond on court contributions. If Paul were a great leader, then the Clippers would keep him around to lead, much like the Miami Heat kept Udonis Haslem around long after he was no longer a productive player.
Labels: Chris Paul, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Kobe Bryant, L.A. Clippers, LeBron James, Phoenix Suns, Ty Lue
posted by David Friedman @ 12:12 PM
