The 2010 @tH Approval Ratings: Chris Paul

by Rohan on Aug 27, 2010 12:00 PM CDT

Positives: Managed to be one of the NBA's most productive guards despite playing half a season (by some measures, more valuable than D. Rose was over 70+ games..), had one of the best months by any player in the history of the NBA (November), improved three point ability yet again (40.9%)

Negatives: Injured, efficiency-wise his worst season since 2006-2007, lowered assist rates, lowered usage rates, "demanded" a trade (maybe) at season's conclusion

My Grade: 4

Poll

On a 1-5 scale, how well did Chris Paul fit his role in 2009-2010?

1

5 votes

2

3 votes

3

20 votes

4

53 votes

5

26 votes

107 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Poll not working

Would give him a 4 as well though.

Need a fantasy fix? Come visit http://www.fantasycafe.com/ for all your basketball, baseball and football needs!

by RedHopeful on Aug 27, 2010 12:47 PM CDT reply actions

4's Probably The Consensus

With some 5’s here and there. He started off the season still struggling (following that playoff loss to Denver) and then pouted openly about Byron Scott being fired. His attitude and morale probably affected the locker room in a very negative way (probably seen in the way the team played much better without him). When he came back from that first injury, he played some terrific basketball under Bower and the team really, really gelled until he got hurt again.

He handled the Darren Collison situation pretty well and seemed willing to be a good teammate. His attitude and pouting probably is what did Byron Scott in more than anything else (in other words, Scott’s close relationship with Paul and Paul’s visible disassociation from the rest of the team all caused Scott to lose the locker room) but when he bought in and played in that middle part of the year, he was really good.

Hopefully these injuries allowed him the rest he desperately needed and he comes back to play at his 2007-2009 level (which was top notch).

"You play to win the game."

by MrWayneKeller on Aug 27, 2010 1:22 PM CDT reply actions

What?

Now see, here I was thinking Scott had lost everyone on the team EXCEPT Chris Paul. And if I remember correctly, Chris Paul was playing very well until he went down in that game against Portland (Bower’s first game as head coach) that caused him to miss 8 games.

by QueenBee on Aug 27, 2010 2:26 PM CDT reply actions

What I'm trying to say is....

CP3 didn’t start off the season struggling at all.

by QueenBee on Aug 27, 2010 2:27 PM CDT reply actions

I guess I'll give...

a 4. I’m sure it would’ve been a 5 had it not been for him missing a chunk of the season. Hornets would’ve likely won more games.

Also, if the team played ‘better’ without Paul, why in the heck weren’t they winning more games?

by QueenBee on Aug 27, 2010 2:32 PM CDT reply actions

Reading Too Much Into It

First of all, I mentioned that Scott lost everyone on the team except for Chris Paul. Excerpt from my post: “Scott’s close relationship with Paul and Paul’s visible disassociation from the rest of the team all caused Scott to lose the locker room.”

Second fo all, I’m sure any and every person that watched the Hornets last year will agree that thet team played better once Paul got hurt the first time around. Now they didn’t the second time around but I believe their initial strong play without CP3 was a huge catalyst for the solid couple months they had when he came back.

Take a step back from being defensive and try to see the bigger picture.

"You play to win the game."

by MrWayneKeller on Aug 27, 2010 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions

Worded It Wrong

Didn’t mean to say look at the bigger picture. Don’t even know why I said it lol. But I was just trying to say to understand where it is I’m coming from.

"You play to win the game."

by MrWayneKeller on Aug 27, 2010 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions

Little man has to get a 4

Production fell slightly due to a multitude of reasons…so it isn’t right to give a 5 , and he didn’t fall off enough to deserve a 3….a 4 is the logical choice as Spock would say.

by 3ptace on Aug 28, 2010 12:04 AM CDT reply actions

OK but this little part here....

“His attitude and pouting probably is what did Byron Scott in …”

kind of came across as Paul’s so called attitude is what got Byron fired. Sorry if I read it wrong but that’s how that came across to me. Also, when CP went out the first time, the team may have ‘looked’ better but they didn’t necessarily play better. Matter of factly they lost the very next game to Atlanta. Usually when a big piece of a team goes out for whatever reason, someone else steps up. They try to compensate for that missing piece. They were able to try to do that for 8 games going 4-4 but the 2nd injury was too much for them. It’s not like they all of a sudden went 7-1 or 6-2 when CP went out. LOL! But yeah, whatever. I give him a 4.

by QueenBee on Aug 28, 2010 12:22 PM CDT reply actions

Well

Instead of putting it in context, you continue to just defend Chris Paul. Sure the team only went 4-4 without him that first time but I think it’s funny you failed to mention they were 3-6 with him playing before that.

Oh well.

"You play to win the game."

by MrWayneKeller on Aug 28, 2010 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions

I think

What the team did or did not go without Chris Paul is entirely irrelevant. Unless someone studies the strength of teams they played with and without him, the relative role of the point guard in the offense with and without him, opponents’ defensive tendencies with and without him, it’s all pointless. And even if somebody did study all that, it’s still pointless because a 9 game sample is way, way too small.

At the end of the day, Chris Paul’s game slipped a little bit when he came back from the injury, but like you noted QB, he definitely posted one of the great October/November stretches in league history.

by Rohan on Aug 28, 2010 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions

The first five games, especially, seemed to point towards another crazy season. Obviously small sample again, but when you’ve already seen a guy play at a similar level for 2+ seasons, it’s easier to buy.

by Rohan on Aug 28, 2010 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions

I gave him a 3. Hard to give anyone a higher rating when they have either been out or well under par for over 60% of the season, especially when you are the franchise cashing in on the team’s biggest contract.

by CP3forMVP on Aug 28, 2010 6:05 PM CDT reply actions