It has been less than 12 hours since the Houston Rockets eliminated the Los Angeles Clippers from the NBA Playoffs. After making Houston look silly in the first four games and annihilating them in three of those four, the Clippers took a 3-1 series lead.
It looked as if the Clippers were the new Lakers.
It looked as if the Clippers were about to head to their first Western Conference Finals in franchise history.
It looked as if the Rockets had run out of fuel (see what I did there?).
To make a long story short, and as most of you know, the Rockets won three straight over LA to win the series 4-3.
There are plenty of talking points coming out of this series, such as “Will the Clippers ever be able to win a big game?” But can we please talk about underachievement? Not the underachievement of the Clippers, but the underachievement of Chris Paul.
Chris Paul has been hailed as the “NBA Gold Standard” for a point guard. And deservedly so, he’s a great point guard. He was the 2006 NBA Rookie of the Year. He has nearly averaged a double-double for his career (18.7 ppg, 9.9 apg). He is an 8-time NBA All-Star and 4-time regular season assist leader.
Chris Paul is a great point guard, but is he a winner? Photo by Gerald Herbert of the Associated Press.
I’m not an idiot. I don’t live under a rock. I know who Chris Paul is. I know how great he is, but I think he’s overrated and has underachieved in his career.
Accolades are nice, stats are cool, and he passes the eye-test with flying colors. That’s about all he has done. Paul has never been an MVP, he has never been beyond the second round of the playoffs, and obviously he has never won an NBA Championship. Yet, he remains the “Gold Standard” for point guards coming into the league.
He’s great, I recognize that. Let me just ask one question: what is the purpose for NBA franchises?
Every NBA franchise sets out each season to win the championship. There is no NBA team who’s goal is to have the best player at each position. Before you smirk at that statement, be logical for a second. It’s *possible* for one franchise to have the top player at each position in its starting five, but that would mean five of the best players in the league would have to take huge pay cuts, and that just isn’t going to happen. Salary caps prevent that kind of thing from happening. NBA General Managers put together the best team they can, but that doesn’t mean getting the best players from around the league all on one team.
Okay, so I’m not saying there is anything wrong with having a superstar or superstars on your team. I’m just trying to point out it is each franchises goal to win a championship and it isn’t necessarily their goal to get the best players at each position.
So this raises a question: why is Chris Paul the NBA Gold Standard for a point guard while he hasn’t been able to help a franchise reach their main goal of winning a title? He hasn’t even taken a team to the conference finals.
If you ask me, the “Gold Standard” is championships and not being the best at your position.
To be fair, Mario Chalmers is a point guard who has more NBA titles (2) than Chris Paul, but I’m smart enough to know Chalmers is not close to being in the same league as Paul.
You don’t have to win a championship to be considered a great player. There are plenty of great players who never won an NBA Championship. To be considered a “Gold Standard”, shouldn’t you have accomplished the goal of all goals?
Calling Chris Paul the gold standard for point guards is saying the gold standard for that position is someone who isn’t a proven champion.
If you ask me, the gold standard for NBA point guards is Tony Parker.
And by the way, Parker has won 4 championships.
Sam's Sports Blog 