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

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Until you admit you don't watch games but make up your own narrative based on the box score/play-by-play - we have nothing left to discuss.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Until you admit you don't watch games but make up your own narrative based on the box score/play-by-play - we have nothing left to discuss.

Of course you have nothing to discuss. The consensus is that you lost, and you don't have any ammunition to counter anything I've said.

All you got is insults.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Of course you have nothing to discuss. The consensus is that you lost, and you don't have any ammunition to counter anything I've said.

All you got is insults.

You're 'insulted' because you know my words are true.

This is your last chance to come clean -

Are you willing to admit your analysis of a game/player/team is more often than not strictly from the box score/play-by-play because you don't watch the game(s)?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You're 'insulted' because you know my words are true.

This is your last chance to come clean -

Are you willing to admit your analysis of a game/player/team is more often than not strictly from the box score/play-by-play because you don't watch the game(s)?

There are over 1200 NBA games a year, not to mention international, college, and high school. I don't watch most games. I don't know anyone that does. I have a life, you know. However, I have watched many hundreds if not thousands of games in my life.

In reference to specific important playoff games that I argue about here, yes, my account is usually based on my own subjective impression of what I viewed along with more objective, inarguable facts like things which are explicitly listed in the play-by-play. I make the effort to see what I can of the games that matter.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

That wasn't so hard now was it? Thanks for FINALLY admitting that most of your arguments are based on bullshyt. Now, hopefully in the future whenever we discuss shyt, you can make a little bit more effort by trying not to post bullshyt. It will save us both time.

 

[MillionMills]

Type essays brehs

 

[Professor Emeritus]

That wasn't so hard now was it? Thanks for FINALLY admitting that most of your arguments are based on bullshyt. Now, hopefully in the future whenever we discuss shyt, you can make a little bit more effort by trying not to post bullshyt. It will save us both time.

The fact that you thought that was confirming your claim is maybe the best example yet of how horribly you misread anything to fit your agenda.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Oh, I know that you'll NEVER type out the words "Yes, most of the time when I post about players/teams/games, I don't watch the game - I just look at the box score/play-by-play afterwards". But you showed your hand enough for me to see.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Oh, I know that you'll NEVER type out the words "Yes, most of the time when I post about players/teams/games, I don't watch the game - I just look at the box score/play-by-play afterwards". But you showed your hand enough for me to see.

I love how you simultaneously claim that I'm a liar, and that I have showed my hand by answering your question pseudotruthfully. If I was lying on an internet forum, why wouldn't I just, you know, lie?

GSH: "I have an agenda I wish to believe, and when I get evidence that doesn't match my agenda, it's okay because I'll just interpret it as if it does!"

Chris Paul balled out in the game, and on a hurt hamstring too. You tried to make it like he was responsible for the loss, and that was a joke that I handed you your ass on, with facts. When you tried to belittle the massive contribution he made (while responsibility for the run actually fell almost entirely on the swingmen/forwards and Doc), I destroyed your slanted, cherry-picking argument with more facts.


Number of posts that @Gil Scott-Heroin has made in this thread: 35

Number of those posts where he has personally insulted another poster:28

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

And he hasn't even touched the three times I've destroyed his narrative....nothing left to respond with but more insults.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I love how you simultaneously claim that I'm a liar, and that I have showed my hand by answering your question pseudotruthfully. If I was lying on an internet forum, why wouldn't I just, you know, lie?

Because I don't believe that you intentionally lie in a malicious manner. I think you get caught up in being hard-headed over your opinion and just extra with it (because you like to be the person in the room who's always right); if you don't watch the game you'll run to the box score/play-by-play to make your analysis of it, and you let your bias and preconceived notions of the player help build the foundation for your argument. It's typically why your views of a player are about 2-3+ years old, because you're going on how you viewed them in the past. I think it's what you probably do anyway when you do watch a game, because you're used to overlapping that with surface numbers and the basic play-by-play. It's just a bad habit. Which is why Westbrook's game and his triple-doubles is an easy target for you, because you think you know what's happening simply from looking at the box score.

You're another example of why I keep repeating that we need to get of the box score, because folks can NOT view the game through a clear window because they've been conditioned by an archaic #s system which doesn't accurately reflect the game. You even take it a step further by just simply relying on it when you don't watch the game, and think your opinion is more closer to the truth than those who actually watch the game.

Which is why I kept asking you, because I knew you weren't going to come out and blatantly lie, and I knew you weren't going to come out and specifically say some form of "You're right, most of the time I don't watch the games, I just look at the box score/play-by-play". You were going to fall somewhere in the middle, mixing in the usual 'I have a life and can't watch most of the games' statement, and stating that you watch "specific important playoff games" to which you argue about - no mention of all the opinions you make about regular season games - you know the ones you don't watch, and/or using the box-score in a dishonest manner.

Plus you may like to think the playoff games you argue about on here are ones you watch, but that's not always the case - I've caught you out many a time arguing about playoff games you don't watch:

Example 1 -

And yeah, CP3 screwed up bad at the end of game 5, but it's one game. In the game immediately before, Westbrook missed the game-tying shot with 39 seconds left and the game-winning shot with 1 second left, part of his 3-8 shooting performance in the final 5 minutes of the game. Why is Westbrook going 3-8 in the final 5 minutes while Durant only gets the chance to shoot 2-3? Why isn't Westbrook considered to have choked that game away with all his missed shots and his failure to get the ball to Durant? Because it's not choking when it's the same thing you do all the time.

Again, you're stat relaying instead of detailing what went on during those last 5 minutes.

That was the game where, according to this board - CP and BG were shutting down Durant in the clutch because he lacked heart and strength to get the ball in the post - where Durant couldn't free himself on multiple possessions against not just Paul and Griffin but the rest of the Clippers defenders. Whenever Westbrook looked to get him the ball (which was on multiple occasions); Durant would be bodied up and and denied the ball, which at that point he didn't make the effort to keep continuing to ask for the ball. He'd just stroll back down the lane and back out the paint where the the shot clock was ticking down and OKC's role players were just standing around - forcing Westbrook to create a shot on his own (this happened at least 2-3 times in the last five minutes), as he was their best hope in generating points.

This wasn't a case of Westbrook simply jacking up shots - it was a case of him needing to take shots because i) Durant didn't show proper effort to get open (inability to post up CP and lose Clippers defenders when they denied him the ball) ii) OKC's role players drifting off away from the ball out to the perimeter to open up space for Westbrook and Durant

He was not 3-8 in the last five minutes, he was actually 3-7 (don't try adding that extra FG miss outside the 5 minute mark - as we would need to add his FG make on the possession before that; 30 secs prior). Not only were there 2 to 3 FGs attempts he needed to take due to Durant not getting open and role players standing around but he was forced to take the last shot when the time was ticking down (four seconds left) after Thabo threw him the ball in their own halfcourt. Westbrook was the only player during that time period which took it upon himself to keep the Thunder in the game - even scoring the Thunder's last two FGs in the last 80 seconds - one tying the game. OKC simply couldn't get stops on the other end due to miscommunication and defensive breakdowns. Else Westbrook would've been the hero.

I'd advise you to go back over the 5 minute period and see how passive Durant was at trying to get open (where Westbrook was actively trying to get him the ball). It was brought up regularly in the game thread at the time - which spurred a lot of the talking points regarding his strength, lack of heart and post moves./

Example 2 -

I said he got hurt in Game 3. You said, straight up, that he didn't.

He was hurt in Game 1
He was hurt in Game 2
He was hurt in Game 3
He was hurt in Game 4
He didn't play in Game 5 (because of what happened in Game 4)
He was hurt in Game 6

"If you're going to say he was "hurt" in Game 3 you might as well say he was hurt all throughout the playoffs. When you bring up a player actually getting hurt that has a lingering injury, it's usually in reference to them coming out of the game and staying out - that only happened in G4 of that series."

You fukked up because you didn't watch that series nor did you watch the Grizzlies play in the first round. Allen was basically "hurt" in every game in the playoffs. Someone that actually watched the games wouldn't single out G3 of the Warriors series as to when he got hurt, they would single out G4 because that's when he got hurt/injured and needed to come out of the game and stay out of the game.

You even lied and said -

No one has ever disputed that Tony Allen had lingering hamstring issues the whole series. But he still HURT his hamstring midway through Game 3. It doesn't matter that it was already hurt, in Game 3 it got hurt worse than before, and that affected him going into Game 4. ESPN and Tony Allen's own words have already verified that.

I reply -

He was re-aggravating all throughout the playoffs - not just in Game 3 but in the games prior in that series and in the first round. If you had been actually watching the Grizzlies play, you would've known this. He was basically day-to-day for most games in the playoffs. I never said he didn't re-aggravate it in G3. I said he was 'hurt'/injured in Game 4 (where his injury actually ruled him out of the game). Game 4 marked when he actually got hurt, to the point he could no longer play on it -

After returning for Game 6 Friday night and having a very minimal impact in the opening half, Ramona Shelburne of ESPN passed along word that Allen would not return for the second half of the game.

Allen, 33, was limited to 16 minutes in Memphis' Game 4 101-84 loss after appearing to tweak his hamstring in the third quarter. He finished with four points and five rebounds. For the series, Allen is averaging nine points and 4.5 rebounds a game, including a 15-point performance in Game 1.

This is before the T'Blazers series -


If you're going to say he was "hurt" in Game 3 you might as well say he was hurt all throughout the playoffs. When you bring up a player actually getting hurt that has a lingering injury, it's usually in reference to them coming out of the game and staying out - that only happened in G4 of that series.

This is where you get yourself into troubling because you talk about shyt you have little-to-no knowledge of. You're wrong on this - do NOT bring it up again.

Tony Allen took to Twitter on Monday to give fans a video peek at how hard he’s working to return from a left hamstring strain.

However, the Grizzlies’ veteran swingman will sit out at least another week with the injury and his return to action before the playoffs begin seems questionable.

“I’m trying to do all I can do to get healthy,” Allen said Monday after missing the past four games. “If I was 100 percent I’d be playing. I feel bad that I can’t go out there. I feel like I’m energy. I’m a spark plug. My enthusiasm plays a role into us being successful. It hurts my heart not to be out there. I’m frustrated because the injury comes at a bad time because I felt like I was in a good rhythm. It’s a minor setback for major comeback.”

The only reason you singled out Game 3 and shaped your argument around him getting "hurt" is that this was the only game you saw/heard that he got hurt - you weren't aware that he had been "hurt" all throughout the playoffs, extending back to the regular season too. You just kept digging and digging that hole, unaware that every time with each scoop you were revealing to me that you weren't actually watching the games.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Example 3 -

I wonder if the fools who claim that CP3 doesn't/can't play defense have been watching this series or not?

I hope we're not attributing Lillard's poor shooting performance to CP's defense - he let Lillard get to his spots and to the rim all throughout the game, either off the dribble or being to slow to get around screens. In fact his man defense in this game was below average.

Here's Lillard's video shot chart - NBA.com/Stats - there's like at least seven FGAs where CP loses Lillard. Lillard either missed open shots or had his shot blocked altered at the rim by other players.

I'm a little lost as to what "good/sub-par" means.

He's still one of the top defenders at the point guard position. And he does especially well against Lilliard.

"Paul plays the type of defense that Lillard struggles with and few guards are capable of emulating. Blazer fans saw Lillard flounder against the physical defense of the Memphis Grizzlies' Tony Allen last spring in the first round of the postseason and have seen similar struggles with this type of defense when facing Paul and the Clippers."

"As has been documented numerous times here at Blazer's Edge, Chris Paul is the equivalent of Damian Lillard Kryptonite. Virtually across the board, CP3 outplays Lillard in their head-to-head matchups. So a "meh" game isn't the absolute worst that we've seen in his battles with Paul."

Career, Lilliard averages 17-5-6 on 37% shooting against CP3. Those are his worst numbers against any point guard in the league. Meanwhile, Paul's averaging 23-4-11 on 50% shooting against Lilliard, so he's taking it out of him on both ends.

First of all, that article is from Feb 2015, and it's detailing what he did during the 2013-2014 season (that was two seasons ago) and it really doesn't go into length on his defense - just showing his defensive shotchart and defensive PPP without any relevant context.

If you didn't watch the game, I posted Lillard's video shot chart above - most of the time when CP was the primary defender on Lillard, he got to the rim at will (either on a dribble drive or handoff/pass) or lost CP on screen(s) - off-ball and on-ball and got to the spots he wanted. CP hasn't been able to contain Lillard whenever he's played him this season. Lillard's struggles against the Clippers this season have been from being a streaky shooter, team defense and DeAndre altering/blocking his shots near the rim.

This is the problem with PG defense, unless you're actually watching the game and can give a general play-by-play on what was the cause of a PG having a poor shooting night - you can't just credit it to the opposing PG. Just as you can't simply say a PG had a poor defensive night if the opposing PG went off.

When I gave you receipts of Blazers commentators after Game 1 stating that Lillard struggled against CP3,
and I linked breakdowns of Blazer commentators explaining why Lillard typically struggles against CP3 defense and that CP3 dominates Lillard head-to-head,
and that CP3 was credited with getting the job done as the anchor of the defense that had limited Lillard to that point,
and Lillard proceeded to average 30ppg and 7apg the rest of the way in the playoffs after CP3 went out,
and Portland averaged 104ppg the rest of the series after only averaging 91ppg in the first three games with CP3 in,
and just last week CP3 held Lillard to a disgusting 1-10 for 8 points with 1 assist and 3 turnovers game,
and Lillard has only averaged 17 and 5 on 37% shooting with 4 turnovers/game against CP3 for his entire career....

I

The bold is a prime example of why I can't fukk with you when it comes to actually discussing shyt: regurgitating articles and stats that have little-to-no relevance, while not providing the proper context (most probably because you don't actually watch the games) and purposefully dumbing down your argument to maintain your original position when somebody posts anything that swallows up what you posted.

Lillard vs. Paul: The Showdown Arrives - this article you posted was before the series took place, it's basically a preview - how disingenuous can you be?
Damian Lillard Struggles Against Elite Guards - this article is only from Game 1 and it's got absolutely nothing containing Paul's defense on Lillard from G1 - all it has is a bunch of H2H box score comparisons and how erratic Lillard can be as a scorer
Paul vs. Lillard is the best 1st-round matchup - another preview of the series
How Does Chris Paul's Injury Affect Blazers? - a brief mention of Paul's defense on Lillard but like you it fails to bring up the exact reasons why Lillard's FG% was poor.
Clippers Lose Paul, Blazers Gain Huge Opportunity - a brief mention of Paul being the "hub of LA's defense" but again it fails to back it up with reasons why, gifs/video footage, or stats of when he was the primary defender
Chris Paul: The Commander In Chief - posts a video from only G1 and basically shows a few possessions where Paul plays competent defense and the rest of the possessions are either Paul being bailed out by help defense or letting Lillard do whatever the hell he wants

Basically only ONE of those SIX links you posted was actually relevant and it was only based on ONE game out of the FOUR games Paul played in, and even that link had a # of possessions that showed Paul playing poor defense. You either don't fact check properly or you try to pull the wool over one's eyes in hopes they don't actually click on the links to check. It's a common theme with your posting.

i) Can you provide any context on the comparison behind the defense being played on Lillard during those games when Paul was out, and when he was playing? Can you provide any context on who was guarding him on those possessions? Can you provide any context on who was reliable for him scoring? Can you provide any context on his made/missed shots and what were contested/uncontested and by whom?
ii) What the fukk does Portland average more points as team have to do with Paul guarding Lillard? Are you conveniently forgetting that Griffin was out too? Are you forgetting that the Clippers couldn't build their normal offensive lines that they usually do when they have their top 2 players - putting more pressure on their defense and forcing the issue leading to the T'Blazers gaining confidence and/or rhythm?
iii) What Lillard scored last week has absolutely nothing to do with last year's series, and can you provide any context on who was guarding him on his shot attempts and when he was driving?

This is what you do, throw surface stats against the wall with absolutely no context whatsoever in hopes that they stick. You can get away with that shyt with the typical smart dumb Lakers fan, but not with me.

Clearly you're somebody that doesn't want to acknowledge factual evidence when it goes against your position. This comes as no surprise as this is your MO.


Here I'll give you a brief account of what the video covers:

Only 12 of Lillard's 47 misses came against Paul as the primary defender during the first four games (that's only 25% of his missed shots - you see how stupid it is to put Lillard's low shooting % down to Paul's defense?)
Lillard shot 18/30 (60% shooting) when guarded or left open by Paul including one FG where Paul failed to get back in transition
First four games Lillard shot 27/74 FG (36.5% shooting), he shot 9/44 (20.5% shooting) when other Clippers players were guarding him, but shot 18/30 (60% shooting) when Paul was guarding him or leaving him open
Lillard shot 41.9% during the regular season but shot 60% when he was guarded by Paul in this series.

It shows all these shots in the video.

You were wrong.

You then continue to lie about CP3's defense in that series, and contradicted yourself in the process -

Because FGA don't tell the whole story. One of CP3's main strengths as a defender is how many shots he limits his guy to. That's what I showed you in the 2014 shooting chart - it's not just guys shooting a low %, it's that they hardly get opportunities at all.

Dame's FG% only went up slightly after CP3 went out. But his usage (and both his and Portland's scoring) went well up.

When a guy is bulldogging you all game, and you're not getting your shots, it affects your game. Dame was pressing even when he got free. You show some plays where CP3 slacked and Dame got open, you got rotated on to. But he still was pressing because he was frustrated. You're not showing clips where CP3 kept Kyrie from getting a shot at all. It's just like what Billups was talking about they did to Kobe. By limiting Kobe's shot attempts by luring the ball to Shaq, they got Kobe to press even when he was only single covered. CP3 limited Dame's attempts significantly, and that affects him even when CP3 slacks on a possession.

That's what I mean by subtleties.

You then ignore actual near-COMPLETE video evidence of Lillard's shot attempts during that series on some petty, troll shyt, to deflect away from the fact that you didn't really watch those games -

And I antagonise you by not watching your video, which gets in your head so deep that even when I post what others see as an innocent, facts-based thread, you go off like I insulted ya mama.

B

I've never looked at that clip once, and I'm not arguing subtleties until you play honest enough to admit obvious facts.

Lillard was 20 and 6 on 36% before CP3 got hurt.

Lillard was 30 and 7 on 37% after CP3 got hurt.

And I'm still not going to watch your video. What a waste of time!

Not only do you contradict yourself here (arguing about subtleties, then not wanting to acknowledge subtleties until I acknowledged the box score stats which are worthless without the right context/subtletites), but you ignore that when CP3 was playing he was either not defending Lillard properly, not defending Lillard on those shot attempts or not even on the court when Lillard was shooting, which I backed up with video evidence. You lie and say that CP3 was "bulldogging" him, when if you watched the games, he clearly wasn't. You're shaping your entire argument around what happened in the box score and your PN of that player (in this case CP3 being a great defender), instead of you know - watching the game.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Example 4 -

Curry in 2 games before Delly hurt: 23ppg on 35% shooting with 6 turnovers/game. Curry in 3 games after: 28ppg on 49% shooting with 4 turnovers/game.
.

Matthew Dellavedova is getting too much credit for stopping Stephen Curry

The Cavaliers guard certainly played hard, but Stephen Curry missed countless shots he normally makes. That won't happen again.


A look at the film shows that Curry spent most of the game getting decent looks -- at least by his standards -- that he would normally connect on. But on this night, for whatever reason, the results were different.
As Curry explained:

Shots I normally make I knew as soon as they left my hand that they were off. That doesn't usually happen. I mean, mechanically I don't know if there is an explanation for it, just didn't have a rhythm and didn't find one the whole game.


Curry was asked if he thought Dellavedova's defense threw him off. The answer: um, not really.

Nothing really just besides playing their game plan and playing defense like every pro is supposed to. Not giving up on any possession.

But I doubt this will happen again, with the adjustments I'll make once I'll look at the film.

In fact, when Curry does look at the film he'll likely realize he doesn't need to make any adjustments at all. Instead he'll see myriad open shots that he normally hits with ease.

Here's a three-pointer Curry missed in the third quarter off a fast break.

Here's Curry's first shot in overtime, a three-pointer from straight away coming off a pick-and-roll. That's a shot he normally buries.

You can find similar situations when Curry was being guarded by Dellavedova, too. On this play, Curry ran Dellavedova into a Festus Ezeli screen. With Timofey Mozgov hanging back near the foul line, Curry got another wide open attempt from the top of the key. This is a shot Curry normally makes. Here he missed.

On this play, Dellavedova fell to the floor chasing Curry and didn't get to his feet by the time Curry received the ball. Another great look. And yet another miss.

Finally, Curry received the ball in the same spot in overtime and used a ball fake to send Dellavedova flying by. Check out where Dellavedova was as Curry prepared to launch. This is the moment opponents expect Curry to hit a dagger. But in this case he missed again.

Curry's biggest problem Sunday night was his own decision-making, not Dellavedova's defense. Instead of trying to get to the rim the league MVP appeared content launching jumper after jumper from deep, even though his most productive plays (such as his game-tying shot in regulation) came when he found the paint.

On this play Curry had lots of room to attack as Tristan Thompson picked him up off a fast break. Instead he decided to pull the ball back and launch a three over the taller defender.

Curry's did cough the ball up six times, but the majority of his turnovers were the result of his own careless play, not some magic conjured up by Dellavedova. One occurred after Curry dribbled the ball off Dellavedova's foot. Another was the result of a hard trap led by Dellavedova. He deserves some credit for those two.

But Dellavedova had nothing to do with the other four. One should have been assessed to the passer instead of Curry, while two came off careless looks.

On this crucial play in overtime, Curry decided to throw the ball to a covered Klay Thompsoninstead of a cutting Draymond Green. The pass was intercepted by Iman Shumpert.

Although Dellavedova played well in Game 2, Curry's horrific night was mostly the result of his own miscues. During the regular season Curry hit 49 percent of the shots he took with a defender within 4 feet of him, per NBA.com. The player we saw in Game 2 is not who he normally is. Don't expect to see Curry shoot this poorly again this series, even if Dellavedova plays the defensive game of his life.

Delly gets too much credit for stopping Steph

And there's many more instances where we get into a heated discussion because the foundation of your argument is built around just looking at the box score/play-by-play, thinking that has more value than an opinion that is based on actually watching the game.

 

[Doomsday]

I told you the Clippers were better without CP3 and Blake was being held back by CP3. Paul is the most overrated player to ever play in the NBA.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Chris Paul balled out in the game, and on a hurt hamstring too.

He actually didn't ball out in that game, and you're putting far too much emphasis on his "hurt hamstring" too. His hurt hamstring was not responsible for him being passive and tentative in that 4th quarter - he has a deep history of it in the playoffs, and it's one of his many flaws as a player.

You tried to make it like he was responsible for the loss, and that was a joke that I handed you your ass on, with facts.

He was responsible for that loss - as was Griffin and Doc. Those three, for the most part, are to blame (the role players did play a part, but that loss mostly falls on the two leaders of the team and the coach for what happened). Those were not facts you posted, they were surface numbers and a recount of the play-by-play. Again, not speaking about what actually happened in the 4th quarter, but just referencing the ESPN/NBA play-by-play.

When you tried to belittle the massive contribution he made (while responsibility for the run actually fell almost entirely on the swingmen/forwards and Doc), I destroyed your slanted, cherry-picking argument with more facts.

The problem with this is, you're failing to realize how his inactivity (on both ends) and passiveness on offense was a MAJOR factor in why the Rockets came back in that 4th quarter. He's the one who controls the Clippers offense, therefore he's the one that has the most influence on the success of the offense and how it affects the result of the game. Multiple posters in the thread at the time were even commenting on it.

Again, he has a history of this. It's one of his flaws as a player. We've seen it in just about every single one of his postseason runs. Last season against the Jazz, again, he was far too passive in the 4th quarter of Game 7 (go and have a look at the game thread and see the posts) - he wasn't really looking for his shot and was content on just cruising when the Clippers were down 79-63. He was even passive in the 3rd quarter, which was half the reason the Jazz extended the lead to double-digits at the end of it.

He only attempted TWO shots in that 4th quarter when the Clippers were within reach of winning the game, despite having the ball in his hands for the majority of the time. What's even more hilarious is that when the game was basically over with 30 seconds left and down by 14 points, he then decided to jack up TWO shots to try and pad his stats (which he also has a history of doing).

He took TWO shots in the first 11 mins and 30secs of the 4th quarter of a Game 7 when his team was down, and yet took TWO shots when the game was basically over, with 30 seconds left, and down by double digits.

That 4th quarter/game was a microcosm of his playoff career, where he's too passive and fades out of games at the most pivotal moments and then tries to pad his stats when the game is essentially over (he did the same thing in that Game 6 Rockets/Clippers series).

 

[Broke Wave]

I'm team @Gil Scott-Heroin but breh I watched that series too... and especially remember losing bread on that game... CP3 was in no way responsible or the loss at all. Blake kept turning the fukking ball over as he always does. That being said I do agree with your premise that CP doesn't make people better and is pretty overrated, I think you chose a bad example of that though.