Have patience, we're good enough?

[jambalaya]

Some background analysis of other title winners and teams that fell just short.


I looked at the number of fairly major and minor moves the last five (first time) title-winners made in the two years before the victory (draft, free agents, trades).


I found they made almost 17 total moves, 8 of which I quickly and loosely called fairly major (had some impact, played 15+ minutes per game or so).


So the teams that win titles make a lot of moves in the two years before the title.


Then I looked at OKC, Orlando and Cleveland (last three teams to get to finals but not win a title, yet).


They made an average of about 14 moves, only 6 of which were fairly major.


So the teams that fell short made fewer moves and fewer fairly major moves than the title-winners.


But they still made a lot of moves. So there is not a good basis for saying they were standing pat, showing simple patience. They made moves. But maybe not enough and enough major ones.

Presti tied with Ferry and Kupchak for fewest major moves but nearly made as many minor moves as the title-winners.

[bondom34]

Welcome to the board! Saw you posted on Welcome To Loud City as well, and interesting look, but I'm not sure it shows anything. It's a pretty minor difference, and considering I don't know exactly what is being considered a "move", making 3 in 2 years is pretty small overall. If a major move is a 10-15 minute contribution, then that's basically picking up a vet min guy at the deadline. So a couple vet min pickups and OKC is at that line.

[jambalaya]

Thanks. Used to be here long ago.

It shows what it shows. I wanted to know more, rather than just talk about patience vs. moves without any facts.

[Kizz Fastfists]

The Spurs made one big move last off-season. They signed Mario Belinelli. When you have a team like the Spurs and Thunder where your best players are locked up what big moves are they going to make? Trade Westbrook? When you have a group of young guys under contract like KD, Westbrook and Ibaka with veterans you are committed to like Perkins, Collison and Thabo there isn't going to be significant change. Some shuffling on the bench with Harden, K-Mart, Fisher, Lamb, Reggie, PJ3, Thabeet, Cook, McGary, Adams, Morrow, ect. but nothing significant.

When you are limited by only being able to offer the MLE there aren't many significant pieces you can add. They almost got Gasol which would have been significant. Morrow was exactly the type of player the needed and had been looking for. Fisher had just gotten to old to shoot 40% from 3 like he did in his younger days. K-Mart wouldn't re-sign at a price they were willing to pay, which was a shame. Westbrook's injury caused a lot of issues with continuity and the team being used to rotations last year. How many teams have won a title when their playoff rotation had only played four games together in the regular season? That is what OKC was trying to do last year with the late injuries to Thabo and Perkins along with Westbrook not playing every game.

[BrianDavis]

Interesting point, but none of those teams traded away its third best player, so its a little different.

[Kizz Fastfists]

Interesting point, but none of those teams traded away its third best player, so its a little different.

Did they trade Ibaka and I missed it?

[Space Dracula]

Interesting point, but none of those teams traded away its third best player, so its a little different.

Did they trade Ibaka and I missed it?

James Harden.

[Kizz Fastfists]

James Harden.

I knew who he was refering to I just disagree with the premise. Ibaka is a more valuable player then Harden. Harden is a very good volume scorer, however, so are a lot of other players. Of the few rim protectors in the NBA Ibaka is the best. Harden is Vince Carter. He'll put up big offensive numbers on mediocre teams, but unless he's the 3rd player that team is gonna be lucky to make the 2nd round of the playoffs. I realize Ibaka isn't going to carry a team either, but he has a bigger impact on the game as a 3rd option, similar to Dikembe.

If Harden doesn't score 25 points he's pretty much had no impact. Ibaka doesn't have to score and he still impacts the game. I just feel Harden, and a few other volume offense players who do not show up on defense, are very overrated by a lot of fans and taking heads. The Thunder were better by every metric you can come up with when they had Kevin Martin instead of James Harden.

[Space Dracula]

James Harden.

I knew who he was refering to I just disagree with the premise. Ibaka is a more valuable player then Harden. Harden is a very good volume scorer, however, so are a lot of other players. Of the few rim protectors in the NBA Ibaka is the best. Harden is Vince Carter. He'll put up big offensive numbers on mediocre teams, but unless he's the 3rd player that team is gonna be lucky to make the 2nd round of the playoffs. I realize Ibaka isn't going to carry a team either, but he has a bigger impact on the game as a 3rd option, similar to Dikembe.

If Harden doesn't score 25 points he's pretty much had no impact. Ibaka doesn't have to score and he still impacts the game. I just feel Harden, and a few other volume offense players who do not show up on defense, are very overrated by a lot of fans and taking heads. The Thunder were better by every metric you can come up with when they had Kevin Martin instead of James Harden.

Not to be rude. But this is patently false. Any objective measurement (APM based, boxscore based, etc.) would show Harden as having a major advantage over Ibaka as a player.

Harden is way better than Vince Carter. Way more efficient than Vince ever was.

The Thunder were better in 2012-13 for reasons that have nothing to do with James Harden or Kevin Martin -- the starting lineup went from mediocre to the best in the league. Improvement from Durant, Westbrook, Sefolosha, Ibaka, etc.

[Kizz Fastfists]

Not to be rude. But this is patently false. Any objective measurement (APM based, boxscore based, etc.) would show Harden as having a major advantage over Ibaka as a player.

Harden is way better than Vince Carter. Way more efficient than Vince ever was.

The Thunder were better in 2012-13 for reasons that have nothing to do with James Harden or Kevin Martin -- the starting lineup went from mediocre to the best in the league. Improvement from Durant, Westbrook, Sefolosha, Ibaka, etc.

James Harden has an advantage on the offensive end. However, there is a reason OKC's defensive rating drastically improved after he left the team. His lack of defense was hurting more then his offense was helping. In 2011-2012 the Thunder were 17th in points allowed. In 2012-2013 that dropped to 9th. Last year it rose to 12th with Westbrook, Thabo and Perkins all missing significant time. The offense was 3rd in scoring in 2011-2012 and 2012-1013, it dropped to 5th last year. Chicks did the long ball, 3 points and flashy offensive players. Without the defenders there to save them on defense though they do not go anywhere in the playoffs. Dwight Howard isn't a good enough defender to protect James Harden when he moves out of the way of his man.

Just to be fair. Houston did go from 9th in scoring to 2nd when Harden got there. Their defense, however, went from 19th to 28th. Last year they made it back up to 23rd after adding Dwight Howard. Their offense held strong at 2nd last year. They didn't make it out of the first round either year. Even when their opponent lost their 2nd best player and top 10 player in the game.

James Harden for his career is a 44.5% FG shooter, 37% 3 point shooter and 85% FT shooter. Vince Carter, through his age 24 season, was a 46% FG shooter, 39.5% 3 point shooter and 77.5% FT shooter. Harden is more efficient at the FT line, but that is all. Vince Carter averaged 9.9 win shares a season through age 24. James Harden has averaged 9.32 a season so far. Vince Carter had a PER of 23.1 compared to 20.2 for Harden.

I'm failing to see how Harden is better through their age 24 seasons. Are you arguing that Harden will end up having a better career then Carter? That is very possible as injuries hurt Carter's career. However, through age 24 Vince Carter had a better career then James Harden has had to date. Carter led mediocre teams to first round playoff exists also.

[Space Dracula]

James Harden has an advantage on the offensive end. However, there is a reason OKC's defensive rating drastically improved after he left the team. His lack of defense was hurting more then his offense was helping. In 2011-2012 the Thunder were 17th in points allowed. In 2012-2013 that dropped to 9th. Last year it rose to 12th with Westbrook, Thabo and Perkins all missing significant time. The offense was 3rd in scoring in 2011-2012 and 2012-1013, it dropped to 5th last year.

James Harden isn't a good defensive player, obviously. But his effect on offense for this team far outstripped his effect on the defense. In 2011-12, the offense with James Harden in the game was 14 points per 100 possessions better than when he was out, with a similar effect in the playoffs. The defense was six points worse -- in the playoffs the defense was actually five points better. Nobody is going to pretend that James Harden was good at defense. But his problems on defense did not keep the Thunder from having very close to a Top 10 defense in 2012.

Comparatively, Kevin Martin's presence improved the offense by 5 points per 100 possessions in 2013. With the defense being worse by 4.3 points. The improvements on the team in 2012-13 were almost entirely tied into the improvement of the starting lineup which obviously James Harden and Kevin Martin have nothing to do with. They improved by nearly 4 points per 100 possessions and played over 1300 minutes in 2013.

Chicks did the long ball, 3 points and flashy offensive players. Without the defenders there to save them on defense though they do not go anywhere in the playoffs. Dwight Howard isn't a good enough defender to protect James Harden when he moves out of the way of his man.

How is this relevant? Great offensive players and great defensive players can't win on their own.

Just to be fair. Houston did go from 9th in scoring to 2nd when Harden got there. Their defense, however, went from 19th to 28th. Last year they made it back up to 23rd after adding Dwight Howard. Their offense held strong at 2nd last year. They didn't make it out of the first round either year. Even when their opponent lost their 2nd best player and top 10 player in the game.

You're ranking defenses on points allowed which is not taking into account pace. Houston's defense was 13th, better than league average, on points allowed per 100 possessions. Their defense actually stayed mostly the same when Harden got there. Pace was just higher = more possessions for both teams = high scores. But not worse defense.

James Harden for his career is a 44.5% FG shooter, 37% 3 point shooter and 85% FT shooter. Vince Carter, through his age 24 season, was a 46% FG shooter, 39.5% 3 point shooter and 77.5% FT shooter. Harden is more efficient at the FT line, but that is all. Vince Carter averaged 9.9 win shares a season through age 24. James Harden has averaged 9.32 a season so far. Vince Carter had a PER of 23.1 compared to 20.2 for Harden.

FT line is the big difference between them and an important difference. His offense will scale better. In his two Houston seasons so far Harden's eclipsed 60% TS twice on over 25% usage which is very rare for a wing player. Carter hasn't sniffed that in his career. Harden's career ORTG of 118 is higher than any single Vince Carter season, and Carter only > .200 WS/48 once while Harden has done it the last three years. They are both poor defenders. Carter kept the TOV down, that's about it.

I'm failing to see how Harden is better through their age 24 seasons. Are you arguing that Harden will end up having a better career then Carter? That is very possible as injuries hurt Carter's career. However, through age 24 Vince Carter had a better career then James Harden has had to date. Carter led mediocre teams to first round playoff exists also.

We're getting off topic here. Replace James Harden with Serge Ibaka. Is Houston better? I don't think they'd make the playoffs in the West. An argument could be constructed that Ibaka was less superfluous to the Thunder team. But there's no objective reasoning that leads to a conclusion that he's a better player than Harden.

[spearsy23]

Comparatively, Kevin Martin's presence improved the offense by 5 points per 100 possessions in 2013. With the defense being worse by 4.3 points. The improvements on the team in 2012-13 were almost entirely tied into the improvement of the starting lineup which obviously James Harden and Kevin Martin have nothing to do with. They improved by nearly 4 points per 100 possessions and played over 1300 minutes in 2013.

Harden and Martin both played bigger minutes with the starters than Sef and Perk did. Overall improvement had a lot to do with having one fewer ball dominant player.

[Space Dracula]

Comparatively, Kevin Martin's presence improved the offense by 5 points per 100 possessions in 2013. With the defense being worse by 4.3 points. The improvements on the team in 2012-13 were almost entirely tied into the improvement of the starting lineup which obviously James Harden and Kevin Martin have nothing to do with. They improved by nearly 4 points per 100 possessions and played over 1300 minutes in 2013.

Harden and Martin both played bigger minutes with the starters than Sef and Perk did. Overall improvement had a lot to do with having one fewer ball dominant player.

Let's observe the facts.

In 2011-12 the starters (KP-SI-KD-TS-RW) played 21% of the available minutes, and were +6.5 points per 100 possessions

In 2012-13 the starters (KP-SI-KD-TS-RW) played 31% of the available minutes, and were +10.7 points per 100 possessions.

Hmm. The starters not only played 10% more of the minutes in 2012-13, they played better by a considerable margin. You may suggest that's because James Harden wasn't around anymore and it gave the starters more opportunity to play together and succeed. Well:

In 2011-12 when James Harden was on the court the Thunder were +8.0 points per 100 possessions.

In 2012-13 when Kevin Martin was on the court the Thunder were +1.4 points per 100 possessions.

If losing James Harden was at all responsible for the team getting better (preposterous), how do you explain this? It makes no sense. The team improved in 2012-13 because the starters were significantly better, particularly any combination of Perkins-Sefolosha which was relatively weak in 2011-12 -- combinations that have little to do with Harden.

As for your assertion that Martin and Harden played more with the starters than Sefolosha or Perkins. This was true in 2011-12 with Harden. Harden played 300 more minutes with Westbrook and Durant than Sefolosha. But in 2012-13 Martin played fewer minutes with them than Sefolosha, who played 300 more minutes with the duo than Martin. You'll claim that's why the team was better. Because Westbrook and Durant had to share the ball less with a third scorer.

2011-12 RW-KD-JH +10.1 points per 100 possessions
2011-12 RW-KD-TS +6.4 points per 100 possessions
2012-13 RW-KD-TS +11.3 points per 100 possessions

There is a jump in 2013 but that jump in productivity is independent of James Harden's presence in the lineups. Unless you think Harden being off the team made the starters play better as a unit -- and I don't see how this could be possible -- then I can't see where you are coming from. Had we kept Harden and his impact on the bench units in 2012-13, combined with the improvements of units that did not contain Harden, the 2012-13 Thunder could have easily been one of the best teams in NBA history.

[spearsy23]

Hmm. The starters not only played 10% more of the minutes in 2012-13, they played better by a considerable margin. You may suggest that's because James Harden wasn't around anymore and it gave the starters more opportunity to play together and succeed. Well:

Looking purely at the stats and ignoring roles is pointless. Sefalosha played more, and took 50% more shots. The ball was in Russ and KD's hands more and they both averaged more assists and proved to be more valuable. The O-rating jumped 3 points per game, then was still higher this year than in '11-12. If Harden is a **** defensive player, and he is then his offense has to have a significant effect on a team, it's been proven that he didn't here. We've watched the offense not only sustain but improve without Harden. I will, without a doubt in my mind, say that Harden is a better player than Ibaka in a vacuum but was not as important here as Serge.

[bondom34]

I will, without a doubt in my mind, say that Harden is a better player than Ibaka in a vacuum but was not as important here as Serge.

This.

[Space Dracula]

Looking purely at the stats and ignoring roles is pointless. Sefalosha played more, and took 50% more shots. The ball was in Russ and KD's hands more and they both averaged more assists and proved to be more valuable

Those improvements occurred independent of the lineups James Harden or Kevin Martin played in. The biggest and most influential improvement came in the starting unit. As we saw, lineups with Martin performed significantly worse than lineups with Harden. Unless you are suggesting that lineups not involving Harden performed better just because he was off the team your assertion makes absolutely no sense.

The O-rating jumped 3 points per game, then was still higher this year than in '11-12.

2011-12 was the lockout year. I know you don't like relative rankings because they do not fit your agenda, but our offense in 2011-12 was about the same as this year. This year's offense fell off because the improvements the starters showed in 2012-13 did not hold up (+ injuries). Nothing to do with James Harden.

If Harden is a **** defensive player, and he is then his offense has to have a significant effect on a team, it's been proven that he didn't here.

Absurd. Harden's influence on the offense in 2011-12 was as positive as any player in the league. The offense went from decent to all time great when he was off or on the court. Team offense improved in 2012-13 in lineups independent of James Harden -- had they performed the same as 2011-12 our offense in 2012-13 would have been much worse.

We've watched the offense not only sustain but improve without Harden. I will, without a doubt in my mind, say that Harden is a better player than Ibaka in a vacuum but was not as important here as Serge.

If James Harden came back to OKC tomorrow he would be the third best player on the team. The reasoning for the trade is defensible. The reasoning for Ibaka being better is not.

[wizkid27]

In an attempt to not turn this into the 8,000th ever Harden or Harden vs Ibaka or Why was Harden traded thread....

I think entirely too much is made between the division of champs and 2nd place (or even 3rd or 4th place). WAY too much. If things bounce a little differently, the OKC wins a title and every one in the world is rushing to write articles about how Presti's patient approach is extremely better than all these other fools who churn through players. Or to make it less OKC-centric, Miami comes out and plays like they're capable of or San Antonio doesn't get on fire and all of the Riley just chases stars and hasn't figured out that you have to draft well kind of articles vanish. The number of plays that make the difference between champ and 4th place are often very few. I get that they're not just random and there is nothing to it, but people radically swing their ideology of what it takes to be successful on the outcomes of those few plays which lead to the eventual champion.

At the end of the day, there are a few teams in the league that have the talent from top to bottom to compete for the title. I don't think there is a valid point of view that would have OKC not being one of those few. After that... it's going to go wrong for all but ONE of those. We weren't that one this year. Hopefully we will be next year. Our GM (in my opinion) has made enough better moves compared to worse moves to put us in that position and has done so very consistently.

[Space Dracula]

I agree. Results based analysis has its flaws because the difference between winning a title or not can be happenstance when teams are so evenly matched. Especially so in the Thunder's case since their last two playoffs were beset by major injuries. The 2012-13 Thunder were a Top 30 team or so by MOV or SRS, etc. Almost every other team higher in those rankings ('94 Sonics, '08 Cavs the only exceptions) won a championship. The 2012-13 Thunder lost in the second round. Nobody will remember how great that team was.

Sam Presti's reasoning for trading James Harden is completely defensible. His return and the timing of the trade are suspicious, but in-line with his practices as GM (do it now rather than later, take care of problems before they become big problems, get value when you can, preserve team cohesion, abide by the stated values of the organization, etc.). I think many Thunder fans go a little too far in their arguments to defend the trade when they choose to compare Serge Ibaka and James Harden in absolute terms as players. Don't feel there is an argument for it. Honestly, if money was no object, I think Sam Presti keeps James Harden ten times out of ten over Serge Ibaka. But considering their relative salaries and roles, sacrificing Harden makes sense. To me this does not mean in any way that Ibaka > Harden. That's the disconnect in these debates.

[Kizz Fastfists]

It completely depends on how much, or little, you value defense. Harden is a great offensive player, but he is a HUGE negative on defense. Ibaka is an elite defensive player AND a very good offensive player. I'll take Ibaka 10 times out of 10. No, Ibaka can't handle the ball and make splashy offensive plays. He just quietly goes out there and knocks down shots.

Ibaka's career 3 point percentage is .366. Harden's is .369. Ibaka is a career 55% shooter and Harden 45%. I'll take what Ibaka gives me on offense, floor spacing and very good jump shooting, over the flash of Harden's offense/flopping at the expense of guys getting to the rim with no attempt at stopping them.

[Space Dracula]

It completely depends on how much, or little, you value defense. Harden is a great offensive player, but he is a HUGE negative on defense.

I'm going to debate this. There is no objective basis for calling James Harden a huge negative on defense for the Thunder. Not a great defender, maybe not even average. But a huge negative on defense is overstating it. Harden was -1.1 on DRAPM estimate in 2011-12. 107 DRTG which was the same as Kevin Durant that season. He got steals. He was okay on the ball. Horrible off the ball. Very solid on the defensive boards for a guard (16.6 DRB %). Defense fell off a bit when he was in the game -- but he played less with our better defenders (Ibaka, Perkins, Sefolosha) than our two other star wings did. And to say there was a HUGE falloff is again overstating the impact.

This really is some revisionist history to make the trade look better and make Harden look worse. There just was no evidence for this line of thinking at the time the trade was made, and now that Harden is playing in a different system with completely different responsibilities we're applying his defensive impact today (poor, but still not as bad as you would portray) to the decision making of yesterday.

Ibaka is an elite defensive player AND a very good offensive player. I'll take Ibaka 10 times out of 10. No, Ibaka can't handle the ball and make splashy offensive plays. He just quietly goes out there and knocks down shots.

I'll also debate this some. Ibaka is an elite defensive player. But is he as elite at defense as Harden is on offense?

On ORAPM James Harden was +5.5 in 2011-12, number one on our team. ORTG through the roof. Our offense exploded when he was on the court. It could have been easily argued that he had one of the most positive impacts on any offense that season.

On DRAPM Serge Ibaka was +3.8 in 2011-12. Elite. Very good. But not the best. Struggled on the defensive boards. Struggled a bit with post defense. The team was 2.5 points per 100 possessions better defensively on the court that year. Solid, but compared to Harden's impact on offense? Not in the same zip code.

This disparity continues to exist today.

Ibaka's career 3 point percentage is .366. Harden's is .369. Ibaka is a career 55% shooter and Harden 45%. I'll take what Ibaka gives me on offense, floor spacing and very good jump shooting, over the flash of Harden's offense/flopping at the expense of guys getting to the rim with no attempt at stopping them.

This is just arm-waving. Comparing 3pt percentage without even a nod towards volume -- and then comparing FG% immediately after? Misleading. Harden's a more efficient scoring threat than Ibaka as the #1 option on his team currently approaching 30% usage. He's closer to Durant or LeBron as a scorer than Ibaka is to him. As for the last line, our current team could certainly use a little bit more of that since FT/FGA is where the team struggled most compared to previous seasons that we dominated.

Like I said. Any in-depth analysis of these two players will lead to a clear conclusion that I don't think any objective fan can poke a hole into. Ibaka was the right choice because he was cheaper, and for a team looking to avoid the luxury tax, less superfluous in his skills than Harden for the Thunder. But I haven't seen anything resembling a convincing argument that he's better than Harden.