Skip to content

Thursday night NBA grades: That Chris Paul guy is pretty good

Nov 1, 2013, 2:50 AM EDT

BKN-WARRIORS-CLIPPERS Getty Images

Our grades from Thursday night around the NBA, or what you missed while listening to bad British announcers call Game 7 of the Heat/Spurs Finals last year….

source:  Chris Paul, Los Angeles Clippers. That was the kind of performance that reminds you CP3 is the very best point guard in the NBA — 42 points, 15 assists, and 6 steals. Before 1974 the league didn’t track steals but since they have no player has put up that stat line in a game. Nobody. Not Jordan, not Magic Johnson, not John Stockton, not anybody. The steals were key — the Clippers forced turnovers, got out and ran and the easy buckets got them the win.

source:  Derrick Rose, Chicago Bulls. He hit the game winner with five seconds left, and like acing your final that raises your grade. But lets not pretend he had a great game — 7-of-23 shooting and down the stretch he had some key turnovers (he has shot 11-of-38, or 28.9 percent, through two games). Rose was aggressive and showed flashes of his old self but mostly he looked rusty… he says that he’s not rusty he is just missing shots. Whatever. Define it however you wish Derrick. The question will pretty soon become how long before the shots start to fall?

source:  Stephen Curry, Golden State Warriors. He is the best shooter in the game today — 38 points, 9-of-14 from three, he can knock it down off the dribble or catch and shoot. His range stretches out into the 300 level seats. He put on a shooting clinic and helped carry the Warriors Thursday night against the Clippers. So why a “B”? He’s also the team point guard and had 11 turnovers by himself (the Warriors had 24) — do that against the Clippers and the run you into the ground. That’s what happened here and the Clips won.

source:  Carmelo Anthony, New York Knicks. This was the classic, divisive Carmelo Anthony game. He had a team best 22 points and hit the shot that capped the 12-0 Knicks run in the fourth quarter, giving them the lead. He made some plays. But he also needed 24 shots to get those 22 points and he was a terrible 4-of-14 from the midrange. He said again in an interview on TNT he’s not really looking to leave NYC as a free agent next summer… but can you build a contender around him?

source:  Clippers defense. For the second game in a row the Clippers allowed 109 points per 100 possessions and they let a team get hot from three (12-of-21 for Golden State). The Clippers got the win so a lot of this will be overlooked, especially since the Warriors will make a lot of defenses look bad this season, but that’s two less than stellar defensive games for the Clippers in two attempts. DeAndre Jordan is very active, but it’s not enough. This is just something to watch going forward.

  1. davidly - Nov 1, 2013 at 3:17 AM

    42 points, 15 assists, and 6 steals. Before 1974 the league didn’t track steals but since they have no player has put up that stat line in a game. Nobody. Not Jordan, not Magic Johnson, not John Stockton, not anybody.

    You’re right that CP3 just had a stat line worthy of comparisons to the illusory Oscar Robertson, the man who not only averaged a triple-double for a season–what everybody seems to know–but also averaged a triple-double over his first three seasons, and almost over his first four. One’d have to take my word for it that he stole & blocked his way to what would’ve been similar lines on several occasions.

    But since ’74, nobody? I’m thinking Pippen and Payton.

  2. antistratfordian - Nov 1, 2013 at 3:22 AM

    Paul’s 6 steals were key, certainly… and what of his 6 turnovers? He taketh away and he giveth. But Chris Paul is gunnin’ for KD’s #2 spot. I’ve always thought that pre-injury CP3 was better than Durant has ever been.

    In any case, the last time any player put up at least 42 PTS & 15 AST in a game was in 2010 when LeBron James put up an absurd 43 PTS, 15 AST, 13 REB, 4 BLK, 2 STL line.

    • davidly - Nov 1, 2013 at 4:14 AM

      This is why I don’t like the “no player has put up that stat line in a game” assertion. It’s either too non-specific, or literal, ie. “so-and-so had exactly those numbers”.

      So, as you point out, one could interpret the LBJ stat line as worthy of comparison, perhaps even a better game. How many turnovers did he have?

      • antistratfordian - Nov 3, 2013 at 5:53 PM

        What do you mean interpret it as a worthy comparison? Of course it’s a worthy comparison, he posted a 40 point 15 assist triple double!

        Bron had 3 turnovers.

    • davidly - Nov 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM

      My point was that, while I find the stat line you cite as a favorable comparison, the statement “no player has put up that stat line in a game” allows too much weasel room to effectively refute.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 4, 2013 at 2:45 PM

        Why try to refute it? What’s the motivation there? You don’t think it’s that rare? Or maybe you think people throw around that claim too easily?

        This is not one of those times.

    • davidly - Nov 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM

      You’re right, it shouldn’t matter to me, but it does. Of course numbers like that are rare. But that was not the claim. The claim was “since [1974] no player has put up [42 points, 15 assists, and 6 steals] in a game.”

      But basically he just said, “Since they started tallying steals, no player has had as many as six of them, while also having as many as 42 points and 15 assists. It just seems odd to me.

      Had he said, “Numbers like that come around much less than once in a blue moon,” I’d be down with it. The numbers are extraordinary and, more importantly, the game he had was a great one. But it took you less than an hour to find a more impressive stat line.

      • Kurt Helin - Nov 5, 2013 at 9:40 PM

        That stat came from NBA.com.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM

        “Numbers like that come around much less than once in a blue moon” – this is basically what he said. You are agreeing with him.

    • davidly - Nov 6, 2013 at 6:12 AM

      “You are agreeing with him.”
      But “NEVER SINCE ’74″ is not the same as “only once in a blue moon.”

      And if I’m agreeing with him, then so are you. But, again, you pointed out that there was at in fact just such an occasion not so long ago–let alone as far back as ’74.

      I think that if we’re gonna distinguish the fact that he had 65 steals in the midst of the other numbers that’s fine, but LBJ’s block/steal combo is more impressive.

      I cannot believe I have trolled my way into this tedious conversation and cannot believe I am going to say this, but if I may put it another way: if you’re gonna use hyperbole to make a point, either don’t specify as much, or specify even more.

      • davidly - Nov 6, 2013 at 6:25 AM

        6 steals

      • antistratfordian - Nov 6, 2013 at 2:36 PM

        I don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore, but “once in a blue moon” and “never since ’74″ are the same thing. Very rare.

        Which is “more impressive” etc… they’re both impressive and both very rare stat lines.

        And Chris Paul can say to his buddy LeBron: “You may have had a 43/15/13 triple double, but

        1) You’re about 6’10 so the rebounds aren’t that impressive and…
        2) The most steals you’ve ever had with 15 assists was 3 and…
        3) The most steals you’ve ever had when you scored 40+ was 5…

        ..so call me when you actually put up 42 points, 15 assists and 6 steals in a game. I won’t hold my breath.”

        LeBron can fire back with his own argument and they’d both be right!

      • davidly - Nov 8, 2013 at 2:12 AM

        You got no argument with me regarding their both being super-impressive efforts/results–and that is a parenthetical part of my point, which is, “never since ’74 is wholly beside the point, and wrong.

        Do you know what a blue moon is? Considering it’s frequency and considering it’s usage, it would be a more appropriate analogy and, again, it absolutely does not mean anything anywhere near “never since ’74″. Period.

    • davidly - Nov 8, 2013 at 2:25 AM

      You got no argument with me regarding their both being super-impressive efforts/results–and that is a parenthetical part of my point, which is, “never since ’74″ is wholly beside the point, and wrong.

      Do you know what a blue moon is? Considering it’s relative frequency and considering it’s usage, it would be a more appropriate analogy and, again, it absolutely does not mean anything anywhere near “never since ’74″. Period. It means infrequent relative to the normal moon. “Once in a blue moon” is used metaphorically to signify a rare event.

      Contrast that with “Before 1974 the league didn’t track steals but since they have no player has put up that stat line in a game.” First, it is not a metaphor–not even remotely analogous. It is meant literally. And while it may be true that no player since 1974 has had exactly 42 points, 15 assists, and 6 steals in a game–one could pick so many stat lines that have not been reproduced that, frankly, it doesn’t do the accomplishment justice.

      What it is, is a failure of the imagination.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 8, 2013 at 6:21 PM

        “‘Once in a blue moon’ is used metaphorically to signify a rare event.”

        No s—. What do you think “never since ’74″ means? It’s a rare event. Whether it’s a metaphor or not is semantics. People would interpret both phrases the same in this situation.

        “And while it may be true that no player since 1974 has had exactly 42 points, 15 assists, and 6 steals in a game–one could pick so many stat lines that have not been reproduced that, frankly, it doesn’t do the accomplishment justice.”

        When you get into high point stat lines for major categories it is not easy to pick “so many stat lines that have not been reproduced.” Those are rare. But you can talk about how Alvin Robertson has the most 5, 5, 5, 5 games since 1985 if you want – and that is impressive in its own right – but it’s never going to amaze like the rarity of a 40 point stat line combo.

        I think you may have mild OCD.

    • davidly - Nov 12, 2013 at 3:01 AM

      No s—. What do you think “never since ’74″ means? It’s a rare event. Whether it’s a metaphor or not is semantics. People would interpret both phrases the same in this situation.

      Utter B.S. The following segment, taken directly from the post…
      “Before 1974 the league didn’t track steals but since they have no player has put up that stat line in a game. Nobody. Not Jordan, not Magic Johnson, not John Stockton, not anybody.”
      …was meant literally. To claim otherwise is unabashedly disingenuous.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 13, 2013 at 6:07 PM

        You’re missing the point. Whether it’s said literally or in the manner you’d prefer, readers would still get the same thing out of it – that it’s rare. That’s the only thing anyone needs to take from it. Now stop with this unnecessary quibbling.

    • davidly - Nov 14, 2013 at 9:04 AM

      I’m not quibbling, just effectively refuting your every response. You’re the one quibbling. You quibble by responding to any an everyone, which probably has a lot to do with your popularity on this forum.

      Whether or not you are an intentionally trolling, on the other hand, is beside the point, because what you’ve done on this thread is attempt to shift goalposts with every response.

      To wit: I began by positing that the literal assertion made in the OP weakened the overall point, which was the extraordinary stat-line. You quibbled, and after much back-and-forth made the claim on behalf of “people” as to how they interpret a literal position. Yet you are the only “people” tediously going on and on about something you never had to respond to in the first place.

      And guess what? This only thing that might make this statement true… Before 1974 the league didn’t track steals but since they have no player has put up that stat line in a game. Nobody. Not Jordan, not Magic Johnson, not John Stockton, not anybody.

      …is that it is conceivable that no player has had exactly 42 points, 15 assists, and 6 steals in a game since ’74. And as you yourself have pointed out, that’s not the point.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 14, 2013 at 3:51 PM

        You are quibbling and I don’t have time for it any longer. I don’t mean to be short with you but this back and forth over minutiae has gone on long enough, don’t you think?

        Onwards and upwards!

    • davidly - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:52 PM

      You don’t mean to be short. That’s funny.

      • antistratfordian - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:55 PM

        Hey, I’m making an effort at some sort of politeness at least.

    • davidly - Nov 14, 2013 at 5:04 PM

      Oh, and I’d give you a thumbs up for it if were to be anything more than like a tree nobody’ll ever see falling in the woods somewhere.

      As you say, onward & upward. I’d take a couple of those guys who average a triple five, by the way.

  3. saint1997 - Nov 1, 2013 at 7:35 AM

    I’m going to just come out and say now that people will get voter fatigue of LBJ and name CP3 the MVP this year. That was way too many 3 letter acronyms…

  4. phillyphil005 - Nov 1, 2013 at 8:26 AM

    You’re both nuts.

    KD is hands down better. Chris Paul gets handled by Westbrook when they meet up every time. And where has Paul taken his team? KD has shown to be more dominant and has taken his team much farther.

    The better record could play a part in who gets the nod, but I think KD is a lock if it’s not LeBron (also agree that there is LBJ fatigue by the voters)

  5. nynic - Nov 1, 2013 at 8:51 AM

    It never stops with the Carmelo hating by the media and writers. Give Rose a grade higher than him and they had the same exact stat line. rose went 7 for 23 and Carmelo 8 for 24. Carmelo 6 rebounds, 6 steals for a so called guy who does not play defense and 6 assist for someone who does not pass the ball and Rose only 3 assist. Actually when you look at the two. Rose does not even make the bulls players any better. people just watch him and pack the lane. There is no doubles to take the ball from him which does not leave anyone open for shots or opportunities. Carmelo on the other hand does those things. draws double teams and triple which allows team mates open looks and opportunities. Its just a matter of how the media community like to tear one guy down and love on another without being OBJECTIVE. I thought that was their job. Even as a fan of the Knicks I can be objective of the whole game and say he had a bad shooting night. But if he does not take on that responsibility then who demands the others get the looks like he can.

  6. ufools - Nov 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM

    @phillyphil…….KD is not a point guard.

    • pburghballin - Nov 1, 2013 at 3:48 PM

      He was referring to antistratfordian’s comments about Paul taking over KD’s spot as the 2nd best player in the league. antistratfordian didn’t mention anything about positions…therefore I don’t believe phillyphil005 needed to either. Read it again…….

  7. mat9844 - Nov 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM

    It’s early in the season, he can only get better. Doc Rivers is great for this team ~ Go Clips!!

  8. pburghballin - Nov 1, 2013 at 3:55 PM

    I can’t wait for D. Rose to get back to being D. Rose. You can tell he’s trying and busting his *ss. It’ll take some time though, the man hasn’t played meaningful basketball in 18 months. It’s not even through the first week of the season yet. People REALLY need to calm down, slow down, and be patient here. Does anyone really think Westbrook or Rondo are going to look “pre-injury good” the second they came back? After shorter amounts of time off than Rose?

    KCCO everyone (both the apologists and the people who want to hate). Rose will be back, he’s one of the best ballers on the planet. Granted that the NY defense is nothing like the Heat defense, but despite still having a subpar overall game he did look a fair amount better than he did in the season opener. Aaand then hit the game winner, which was awesome and I think it’s great for him that shot fell. It would help him though if the rest of his team could knock down a shot every once in a while. Rose isn’t the only one shooting bad on that team ya know.

    CP3 was str8 lights out last night! Dude couldn’t miss!

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Why can't Lakers have a player-coach?
Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. K. Love (4244)
  2. T. Warren (4103)
  3. L. James (3865)
  4. R. Allen (3566)
  5. A. Wiggins (3355)
  1. K. Bryant (2893)
  2. D. Rose (2816)
  3. E. Bledsoe (2750)
  4. J. Nelson (2598)
  5. C. Anthony (2270)