What do you think would happen to CP3's legacy if he blows another 3 1 lead again.

[coastalmarker99]

Here are Chris Paul stats in his first 3 WCF games:

18 PPG
31.7% FG
12.5% 3FG
-27 +\-



I think it is somewhat unfair to fully judge a player at 36 that is clearly past his prime but man, if they blow a 3-1 lead after going up 2-0 without him AND Kawhi missing the entire series, I don't think CP3 ever lives it down especially since this year is maybe his last roll of the dice when it comes to finally winning a ring.

[RogueBorg]

Here are Chris Paul stats in his first 3 WCF games:

18 PPG
31.7% FG
12.5% 3FG
-27 +\-



I think it is somewhat unfair to fully judge a player at 36 that is clearly past his prime but man, if they blow a 3-1 lead after going up 2-0 without him AND Kawhi missing the entire series, I don't think CP3 ever lives it down.

He's already known as a choker. He got that rep while in his prime.

[Carbine]

If it's unfair to criticize than it is also unfair to praise.

He finished third in MVP voting right? He's past peak but not prime. He LOOKS like the same player he has been for the past number of years as far as explosion.

[Kblaze8855]

If it's unfair to criticize than it is also unfair to praise.

He finished third in MVP voting right? He's past peak but not prime. He LOOKS like the same player he has been for the past number of years as far as explosion.


The “He gets the praise he has to take the blame” logic sounds good till you think it through.

The player who plays the best has more individual responsibility for the teams victory than anyone else. The player who plays the best had the least individual responsibility for a team losing. Fans will never do it because hating is fun but honestly....stars absolutely have more to do with winning than they do losing. A star playing below his usual level is still usually doing more than the role players. Maybe not by their standards but bottom line? Yea.

When one or two guys are doing the most they should get more credit for wins and less blame for losses. It won’t ever be that way....but it’s usually true. The losing star usually does more than his lesser teammates. Giving him the most
blame for playing better is just unreasonable.

[Carbine]

Bridges isn't making 40 million a year though. If a company fails is on the CEO. Not the receptionist.

Chris Paul's numbers in this series probably make up m one of the worst players in the rotation to be honest. If this continues and they lose the series, he deserves critical critisicm.

[StrongLurk]

It will be a big blow because it further cements that his body can't consistently hold up a full year of basketball.

He's probably only playing around 70% considering his injury in the first round and his covid issues.

Chris Paul has NEVER had a better chance to win a chip...he's gotta make the finals and play well.

[Kblaze8855]

Except the receptionist can’t do anything to make the company a success. An nba team? Anyone on the floor can play a large enough role to win a game. Someone on the ground floor of a giant company can’t make them profitable. Your 7th man can come in and make 7 threes. He can draw 2 fouls on a star and get him off the floor. He can get 3 offensive rebounds that turn to threes in a 2 point win.

The non stars who get no blame CAN win or lose you games in a way a receptionist can’t make your company a success.

When Steph has an average game in a win he’s a huge reason they won. If his teammates have average games too he’s still a bigger reason they won compared to any of them individually. When he plays average....they play average...and lose? He did more to prevent it than they did.

They lose because their role players can’t play on his level. People want to be “fair” and blame him for losses because they credit him for wins but it really just doesn’t make any sense.

If we need 100 points to win and I score 30 and 10 guys combine for 60....blaming me is just stupid. Not that it’s all about points....but you know what I mean. The guy doing the most does deserve the least blame. The players not on his level are the reason the team isn’t better. That’s why superteams win. You need more stars and less role players generally. The stars aren’t why bad teams are bad.

The role players not being more talented is what usually makes bad teams bad.

If you factually play worse than role players that’s another story. But that’s a specific issue not a general concept. I’m talking generally in life and team sports.

Blaming the best person on the team just doesn’t make sense. The other being being worse than him is usually the bigger problem.

[Carbine]

Receptionists can improve the bottom line of the business. Not by actually doing their job, but soliciting other ways to secure business.

[Kblaze8855]

Better analogy would be CEO and board of directors. Role players are miles beyond a receptionist. And not many ceos are as important to a major company as a superstar to an nba team either. Whoever the ceo of coke is....if he quits....I promise you there will still be a billion cokes sold.

[jayfan]

It wouldn't be good.


That being said, he'd probably escape untarnished on here. He always does. It's never his fault.



.

[Kblaze8855]

It wouldn't be good.


That being said, he'd probably escape untarnished on here. He always does. It's never his fault.



.

Pretty much never is. Fans just don’t have the emotional maturity to see a team loss without assigning individual blame. Gotta find a scapegoat.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Is Chris Paul even their best player? Reg season there was stats that say suns were a lot better with Devin Booker on the court this season then they were with Chris Paul. Also eliminated Lakers and Chris Paul averaged 9PPG, he had an incredible 2nd round but has been bad this round.

I feel Devin Booker is like the dirk and Chris Paul is in that Jason Kidd 2011 phase.

A finals mvp for Chris Paul could raise his legacy significantly though. If he loses? Pretty much just stays the same.