LVP Candidate Blake Griffin 1-11 since OP was made; I lost

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I notice you didn't actually dispute his story though

I actually did in another thread, which I upped, and he didn't even acknowledge it. I upped it because I already broke it down for him in the past, and he chose to ignore it then as well. He ignored the actual events of that game (something that I pointed out to him TWICE) in favor of his own made-up narrative.

 

[LV Koopa]

I actually did in another thread, which I upped, and he didn't even acknowledge it. I upped it because I already broke it down for him in the past, and he chose to ignore it then as well. He ignored the actual events of that game (something that I pointed out to him TWICE) in favor of his own made-up narrative.

Ehhh...sounds like you just hating to me

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Ehhh...sounds like you just hating to me

So CP3 is without blame in that Rockets series? Because that's the posts you've been cosigning in this thread, posts which absolve CP3 of all blame.

 

[Tha_Mac]

Before anyone else comes in here with their revisionist bullshyt of what happened in the 4th quarter, Game 6 of that Clippers/Rockets series-

Rockets had all the momentum going into the 4th quarter (down by 13), this was Paul's opportunity to take control of the offense, and swing the game back in the Clippers favor - but this was what ensued:

First possession – Clippers spread the floor below the four points of the arc (Crawford has possession), Paul stands in the corner, DeAndre comes for the high screen to help Crawford shake his man – the ball doesn’t move and Crawford misses a shot. Although Crawford was mostly to blame for this possession, nobody even attempted to move without the ball – Paul included. This is where Paul needed to stabilize the offense by running a proper set while nullifying the hold Houston had on the game to start off the quarter on a good note.

Houston end up earning a trip to the free throw line – Brewer makes 1 from 2. Lead down to 12.

Next possession – Paul runs a PNP with Davis, who’s stranded just below the arc and looks to hand the ball to Crawford – that option is shutdown and Davis gives the ball back to Paul who aimlessly dribbles on the top right-hand side in front of Terry, who blocks his 3-pt attempt with 10 seconds left on the shotclock. (Paul 0-1 FGM)

This creates a play in transition for the Rockets who draw a foul on the play. Brewer ends up getting a layup on this possession. Lead down to 10.

Next possession – Full court-press on Paul, he gives the ball up to Crawford, Crawford brings it into the halfcourt, passes out to Davis [acting as the go-between], who looks at giving the ball to Paul, but Paul’s not paying attention to the play and Davis is forced to give it right back to Crawford – these two run some weakside PNR action that results in a turnover.

That’s three empty consecutive trips down the floor where Paul’s error of judgment, lack of urgency/attention and passiveness have proved costly.

Lucky for Paul - who makes a half-hearted attempt at a steal while not running back on defense - the Rockets turn the ball right back over. He’s thrown an outlet pass (as he’s positioned already near the halfcourt), fakes on a 3-pt attempt, drives and gets a foul call on a shot in the paint. He makes both free throws. Lead back up to 12.

Again, Paul makes a defensive blunder by missing his rotation on Ariza who hits a 3-pointer. Lead down to nine.

The next possession Paul initiates the offense, and does a great job with using the double screen by dribbling out of trouble and setting up Griffin who misses a wide open 16-ft jumper.

Rockets miss a shot at the other end of the floor, Crawford grabs the defensive rebound and pushes the ball into the halfcourt – Paul looks disinterested and slowly folds out to the right side and just stands there with his hands on his knees – not demanding the ball and not moving without it. DeAndre comes to screen Ariza, allowing Crawford to get into the lane but misses a shot.

The Clippers offense has failed to make a field goal in the first three minutes of the quarter – they’ve gone completely cold, Paul has failed to take control of the offense and the momentum is still in Houston’s favor.

Doc takes Paul out of the game and replaces him with Reddikk.

The next immediate possession the Clippers make their first field goal of the quarter (Reddikk 3-pter), Houston responds (Brewer 3-pter), Clippers hit right back on the next possession (Rivers And-One layup), then the Rockets score again. Clippers score 6 points in less than a minute without Paul on the court – lead remains at nine.

Paul re-enters the game for Rivers.

Next possession Paul slowly brings the ball into the halfcourt, dribbles around waiting for a pick instead of attacking the defense, forces an errant pass to Griffin off a cross-screen, ball is deflected out of bounds and the Clippers only have 7 secs left on the shotclock. Barnes looks to inbound the ball to Paul, but he’s making no attempt to split away from Terry who’s riding his hip. Barnes is then forced to throw the ball over Paul’s head to Griffin – Smith makes the steal and hits 3-pt jumper at the other end. Lead down to six.

Again Paul’s lack of urgency in getting the offense started is playing right into Houston’s hands.

For the first time in the quarter Paul brings the ball up the court with pace, fakes out on the double screen; Howard and Smith fail to close the gap and Paul takes the ball straight to the rim for a layup. Quick and decisive from Paul - one can’t help but think why wasn’t Paul this aggressive during the first 5-6 minutes of the quarter? Why didn’t he take a more active role in the offense when Houston kept chipping away at the margin? Lead now at 8 (Paul 1-2 FGM)

Smith makes a three at the other end. Lead now down to 5.

Paul pushes the ball again into the halfcourt with pace, uses the top screen and get to the left-elbow (least preferred side) – but he does an unnecessary 360 spin while attempting a jumper before he can even regain his balance. He showed the right mentality on this possession but it was a poor option. (Paul 1-3 FGM)

Howard is fouled at the other end and misses both free throws.

On the next possession Paul gives the ball straight to Griffin in the lane, Griffin passes it to DeAndre who missed an easy dunk. Good play, just poorly executed. The Clippers get the ball back on an offensive rebound, running the same play – this time with the defense sunk right in the paint – Griffin kicks it out to Barnes who misses a three.

Despite a poorly-executed shot, over the last few minutes, Paul has actually been active in orchestrating the offense; putting the defense on the backfoot with probing the defense/making the right decision and dictating the pace to suit his team.

Smith makes a layup at the other end. Lead down to three.

Clippers make the mistake of running the same action (for the fourth consecutive time) – the Rockets are now aware to this (even if they are a smart dumb eam), so Howard hedges just enough to get Paul to force the ball to Griffin on the inside, Brewer sinks in the paint just enough to cover DeAndre, Howard then shuffles over and once Griffin gets over Smith – Howard swats his drop shot.

Poor execution all around; Paul shouldn’t have ran the same foundation play and Griffin should’ve been more aware as to where Howard was. Paul hasn’t even tried to give Reddikk the ball since they’ve both been on the court together, and it’s showing as the Rockets perimeter defenders have been cheating off their matchups – which is allowing Howard to roam and shutdown the paint.

On the other end Houston have a bunch of offense rebounds which leads to Howard hitting 1 out of 2 free throws. Lead down to two.

Clippers make the same mistake again, by running a similar set with the same look – ball straight down to Griffin, DeAndre’s man comes over to help and the Rockets defense just swarms on Griffin – forcing him to put up an off-balance shot which leads to a dunk in transition. Score even.

Even for a smart dumb team like Houston, this shyt is child’s play – the Clippers offense is just playing right into their hands – running the same shyt and getting the same results.

The next possession – yup you guessed it – they do the same shyt with a slightly different look that leads to Griffin missing a contested layup. He should have completed this play, but at this point every single other Clippers player has been phased out of the offense. The ball isn’t moving and they keep using the same actions to initiate the offense with the same run-ins.

Doc or Paul should’ve called a timeout long before they even arrived to this point. Ironically enough the Rockets call the first timeout – they run a makeshift horns set with high action, Howard comes over to show-screen for Terry and folds back into the paint – Terry passes straight to the corner and Brewer has just enough time to get off a three and hits it. Rockets up by 3.

After this point the Clippers just implode:

Paul ends up missing the rest of his shots when the game’s in reach
They start moving the ball too late and Crawford and Reddikk have gone cold after failing to touch the ball for five minutes and miss makeable shots
Griffin and Paul play hot potato with the ball, making unnecessary passes instead of just trying to score
Paul wasted opportunities by not probing the defense and getting extra defensive attention to open up his wings.

Could you type one of these up for Steph Curry's 4th quarter in Game 7 of the 2016 Finals?

 

[LV Koopa]

So CP3 is without blame in that Rockets series? Because that's the posts you've been cosigning in this thread, posts which absolve CP3 of all blame.

Yes

Could you type one of these up for Steph Curry's 4th quarter in Game 7 of the 2016 Finals?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Yes

Shameless.

 

[Tha_Mac]

Could you type one of these up for Steph Curry's 4th quarter in Game 7 of the 2016 Finals?

You gonna act like you didn't see this @Gil Scott-Heroin?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Gil, I didn't acknowledge your diatribe because it was one of those typical Gilsplaining fanfic accounts where you see the game through tinted glasses that show exactly what you want to prove. Some people always believe that 2/3 of the calls go against their team no matter what - similarly, you slant and cherry-pick the hell out of everything to make exactly the case you want to make.


1. You ignored CP3's great 17-4 run that occurred just a few minutes before your narrative started.

2. You ignored the Clippers' complete ineptitude without CP3 that had been demonstrated immediately before your narrative started

3. You ignored that virtually all the defensive breakdowns were by other players

4. You mischaracterized multiple plays to blame CP3 when he didn't deserve it

5. You used silly, emotionally-laden words to describe his play and make innocuous decisions look like character flaws

6. You regularly ignored the manner in which his injury limited his options


I could write a play-by-play counter-narrative to yours...but what would be the point? You NEVER admit that you're wrong, under any circumstances, I've proven that ably in the past. And no one else wants to read those long-ass full-quarter breakdowns. So what would be the point of responding?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You didn't watch the game. Stop talking about it.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I actually did in another thread, which I upped, and he didn't even acknowledge it. I upped it because I already broke it down for him in the past, and he chose to ignore it then as well. He ignored the actual events of that game (something that I pointed out to him TWICE) in favor of his own made-up narrative.

Here's the more specific, longer version. I'm still not going to reply to every damn play, because it would be a waste of time as you're not going to listen and no one else cares.

1. You selectively started the narrative halfway through the sequence of events. People forget that the Clippers were only holding a 6-point lead near the midway point of the 3rd quarter. What happened? CP3 led a 17-4 run in which he scored 12 points and got two assists. You ignore that he had dominated the game in order to get the Clippers up that much with 2:16 to go in the 3rd.


2. Doc took CP3 out with a 19-point lead that he had just built almost single-handedly. In the ONE minute that CP3 is out of the game, the Clips throw away five opportunities (two Blake turnovers and three missed shots by Rivers/Redikkk) while sending the Rockets to the line three times. Lead is down to 13 and CP3 was only gone for ONE minute. Later on, when the Clippers amazingly manged to hit two shots with CP3 out, you act like the offense was humming without him, when in fact those 2 shots only put them to 2 for 7 in scoring without CP3 in the game during the comeback. And it wasn't from any "great offense" that they scored - it was a Rivers isolation play that both Terry and Howard fell asleep on because, well, it was Rivers. There wasn't any ball movement or anything on the play - Rivers just drove by Terry and Howard didn't rotate, but you make it sound like the offense was popping and people were moving around just because CP3 wasn't in the game.

Overall, the Clippers were -25 in 23 minutes with CP3 out over the last three games of the series. You cherry pick that one minute in the fourth when you and I and Doc and everyone else knows that they were nearly always lost when Paul was out of the game.


3. The 40 points that Houston scored were almost entirely due to poor defensive play by Blake and the other swingmen. Yet you ignore that entirely in favor of the things you can blame CP3 for. The reason that Houston was suddenly able to score 40 points in a quarter without Harden/Terry doing shyt is ignored by you.


4. The way you interpret possessions always shyts on CP3, sometimes unfairly. For example:

Again, Paul makes a defensive blunder by missing his rotation on Ariza who hits a 3-pointer.

Note, other than a "half-hearted attempt at a steal" (on a possession where the Rockets turned the ball over anyway), that is the ONLY defensive blunder you are able to pin on CP3. You use "again" to make it sound like he's made repeated defensive errors when your account doesn't list any such errors. You're talking a guy who played nearly all of a 40-point quarter for the Rockets, and even in your biased account only 3 of the 40 points can be pinned on CP3?

Even pinning that three on him is bullshyt. When you said that CP3 missed his rotation on the Ariza three, in reality Crawford was fighting through the screen and CP3 was right there waiting for the roll like he should have been. I can show you multiple other possessions where CP3 was fighting through screens, suggesting it's highly likely that CP3 was supposed to be waiting for the switch rather than jumping it.

In fact, look at what you claim is a "missed" rotation, on closer look:

chris paul on screen

• Professor Emeritus
• Oct 28, 2017

You expect Paul to jump above that screen to the right to get in Ariza's face. Yet if he had done that at any point before that moment I show, then Ariza could have gone backdoor to the basket unimpeded and Terry would have effectively been screening off both defenders. Jumping a screen on the wrong side of the basket is a dicey proposition, and Crawford has clearly sold out already to fighting through the screen instead of waiting on Terry. In fact, the shot looked like this:

Chris Paul after screen

• Professor Emeritus
• Oct 28, 2017

It doesn't look like CP3 is out of position, it looks like he's waiting for Terry to come out and Terry just didn't. Saying that CP3 "missed his rotation" there is an incredibly Gil-slanted way of describing that play.


5. We're talking the 4th quarter of a closeout game that could put CP3 in his first WCF ever, and you use words like "aimlessly", "not paying attention", "lack of urgency/attention", "passiveness", "half-hearted", "disinterested", "lack of urgency" to describe his plays. This is just total bullshyt.

Chris Paul played 41 minutes on an injured hamstring, went 31-7-11, helped hold Harden/Terry/Prigioni to 8-31 shooting, and scored 21 of the CIippers' final 33 points...but you're going to spout bullshyt about him being disinterested in the game? You're just full of crap.

Nearly every time you use one of those words, you're referring to a play where CP3 didn't do anything wrong, so you have to throw an emotionally-tinted word on his play to make it somehow look bad.


6. You completely ignore the ways in which CP3's hamstring injury limited his options, which is especially hilarious because I just saw you use Blake's "expended too much energy in the first 3 quarters" as an excuse for him playing poorly in the 4th, but you don't give the same excuse for the guy who expended more energy than Blake AND was injured on top of that.

Paul had only played 28 min/game in the three games since he came back from the injury, now he was putting in 41 minutes in this one, and hard minutes at that. Yet you express mock outrage every time he doesn't run around off-ball when Crawford has it. Guess what Gil, Crawford rarely passes and being off-ball on offense is one of the few times CP3 can rest at all. When he was doing literally everything else for the Clippers, it would be stupid for him to be running around like Klay Thompson when he was off-ball too.

Similarly, you blame him for not getting separation on an inbounds pass, and thus blame him for the turnover that ensued when the inbounder made a poor pass to someone else. Guess what Gil, the 6'0" tall guy with a hamstring injury being covered by a taller defender isn't really the ideal inbounds option under pressure. It was expected that he will sometimes not be able to get separation like that - the turnover was on the two people who actually turned it over.

Similarly, you blame him for not driving enough when it was more likely that he simply couldn't. You should know what a hamstring injury feels like. Every time you push it is hell, and when you push it too hard you have to give it a break before you push it again. Paul scored on a successful drive in the quarter and drew shooting fouls two other times (made all four free throws), after having scored on three successful drives and drawing two shooting fouls in the previous half-quarter. That's 4 made field goals on drives and 4 drawn shooting fouls by a 6'0" injured point guard in just 1.5 quarters, not to mention 6 points on 7 jumpers. That's probably what he had in him. To say "he needed to push harder" is bullshyt considering the circumstances.

Also worth ignoring that you've repeatedly listed his FG numbers in the 4th while ignoring the fact that he was getting to the line, something no one else on the team was doing.


That's why I usually ignore your bullshyt Gilsplaining accounts. It's all bias and emotion inserted into the story in a way that makes the players you want to make look bad.

Looking at the daps/reps though on my previous explanation as opposed to yours, looks like I had already done good enough and could simply have said, "scoreboard".

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

It's all bias and emotion inserted into the story in a way that makes the players you want to make look bad.

Did you just use the same argument I used against you? Shameless. I'm not interested in what you have to say - you're dishonest because you don't watch the games and you run to the box score/play-by-play to push your agenda.

 

[CHERUB]

Some of y’all really typed e books on this shyt I just wanna rep and dap y’all for the dedication and passion. I ain’t seen shyt like this since the old Bbs days

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Did you just use the same argument I used against you? Shameless. I'm not interested in what you have to say - you're dishonest because you don't watch the games and you run to the box score/play-by-play to push your agenda.

Except that I DEFENDED my claim by showing exactly how your account was wrong.

Am I pretending to be inside the players' minds, using ridiculous words like "disinterested" and "aimlessly" to describe CP3's play in the midst of a huge game?

Am I pretending to be inside other posters' minds, claiming they are dishonest and that you know things about their personal lives which were just proven false?

I focus on the verifiable facts. You ignore that, ignore objective facts that no one can dispute, and instead cherry-pick individual plays in order to make up a narrative that anyone who looks at the actual plays (and the 50 others that you fail to include) can see is false.



Number of posts that @Gil Scott-Heroin has made in this thread: 30

Number of those posts where he has personally insulted another poster:23

Number of posts where he defended his opinion or rebutted their argument with a verifiable fact: 2

And I just proved false the one significant fact-attempting post you made, and you refuse to respond with anything but more insults.


This is a continuation of Gil's "Lebron Stans, y'all" trend. His new M.O. is just to be as annoying and insulting as possible, not even trying to defend his points anymore, in the hope that the people who show him up will get annoyed and leave.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I've already proven time and time again that your arguments are almost completely based on the box score/play-by-play. Which is why you won't even respond in that other thread. You can deny it all you want, but I know the truth.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I've already proven time and time again that your arguments are almost completely based on the box score/play-by-play. Which is why you won't even respond in that other thread. You can deny it all you want, but I know the truth.

You should be negged for that bullshyt when I just made a long-ass post that proved you wrong.

I focus on verifiable facts. When I want to talk about individual plays, I often post pictures or video to prove what I'm talking about.

I don't like making bullshyt "this is what happened on X play" posts like you do because the kind of posts you make are almost always based on a subjective interpretation of the play, and cherry-pick certain plays in order to avoid others. I do prefer statistics that cover the full outcome of all the plays, and only tend to describe individual plays occasionally where it is descriptive of larger trends.


Others have noted (and shown by their daps and reps) that my accounts are persuasive, and yours are not.

Now, stop making posts full of nothing but childish insults, and actually try to rebuke the points I've made against you.