Player of the Day: Andre Roberson

[slick_watts]

Well sleestak is talking about his entire preseason

actually, no. he wasn't! sleestak commented (unsolicited) on my observation of the melbourne game, specifically. stay in your lane, kiddo.

Carmelo and abrines aren't the turnstiles defensively you and others claim they are. Grant is very active on D, despite the lazy narratives saying otherwise. Huestis has played circles around him.

this is the funny thing about evidence-based claims. it's not me and others making the claims, it's the data. you say grant is 'very active' on defense (which, you know, means nothing). the data says he's not productive there. it's not me saying it.

taking it down to a level you may grasp. if someone said kevin durant was not a great scorer in the nba, how would you respond? not with baseless platitudes. but with research. you know kevin durant scores 30 a game on robust efficiency. it's not your claim, it's the data. just like how teams perform much worse defensively with carmelo anthony or alex abrines in the game. just like our starters with andre roberson have performed at an elite level across multiple seasons and lineup permutations. it's not me. it's the data.

Do you agree he is for the most part a non participant on offense?

i wouldn't go that far, but he's certainly a liability. however, the data supports the claim that our starters are likely better with him than any alternative considering what he brings on the defensive side of the ball. i would definitely like to see a 'big' lineups at times with patterson substituting for roberson, but considering george's and anthony's recent positional history, i don't think this would be a smart change to the starting unit.

[ThunderBolt]

But what about what my eyeballs see? And Kendrick Fricken Perkins?

[slick_watts]

But what about what my eyeballs see? And Kendrick Fricken Perkins?

my eyeballs have mostly seen russell westbrook (with the starters) handing off the ball to carmelo or paul george or adams to begin offensive sets, do some weak pindown / back screen stuff, and a force feeding of isolation opportunities to get melo or george shot attempts.

the struggles the starters have gone through doesn't seem roberson related to me. roberson in fact has appeared a little more active with the ball and moving it than usual. to me it seems like the ball is coming out of westbrook's hands too much just to get iso opportunities for the other guys.

roberson's weaknesses are for sure amplified when he plays with other liabilities like grant and huestis, though. this is why it's so strange to me that some people want to bench him. his strengths are best leveraged (and weaknesses best subdued) when he's on the court with good offensive players. just like westbrook's strengths are amplified playing next to dominant defensive wings.

[CROklahoma]

Just stop that nonsense. What passing ? Who did he pass the ball to to say he improved passing ? He is not playing any P&R, nor facilitating anything beside a simple handoffs at the top of flex actions. He had one simple dump off the floor pass to Adams during whole preseason.

The Robes haters, and Robes lovers out here are just an example how terrible someone's fanatical perception can go.

Reality about him is simple. He should play situational. Guard top dog wings in the league. 16-20 mins per game average. If playing against juggernauts like GSW, Cavs, Spurs, Rockets, use his minutes on the floor wisely, considering he'll contribute on the defensive end of the floor, but hurt you massively on offensive end, considering scouting report he brought himself.

I'm just really terribly dissapointed at the time he alledgedly spent during offseason(s). He didn't improve a single thing in his game during his time in last few seasons, beside his toughness.
He had/has enourmous potential if he could just convert SOME of his wide open shots guys create for him. Its clear that he will never ever be a below average shooter, meaning his lifespan in NBA will be a lot shorter than it could be, when he starts to slow down ...

He passwd that one time to!!!

No, you don't call out a single play as improvement but if you havent noticed it you havent been paying attention. Im not a Roberson"lover". He is a flawed player but a great defender and arguably best perimeter defender in the league who anchored a defense. You remove him fine but its the same terrible argument for starting Kanter over Adams. Its blind ball watching, which is fine if thats the level of analysis anyone wants but I would rather win games. He has historically dragged this defense to above average (unless you argue Russ has been a great defender on the perimeter an is the reason these lineups show as much) and continues to do so. Again if all you do is stare at the ball for 48 minutes fine. But thats not analysis.

I was actually one of the few bball fanatics who pumped his views on the few highlights videos he has over on youtube. I'm actually a fan of him. I dont watch anything else when we are on defensive end, beside him putting his assignmets into a locker, be that the guy who has the ball, or when he chases guys around the screens, or squares up his tasks in post. But also, I'm realistic. Think my views would actually go as unrealistic if I would describe him, and his meaning to our team to some other, educated NBA fan.

[hardenASG13]

Well sleestak is talking about his entire preseason

actually, no. he wasn't! sleestak commented (unsolicited) on my observation of the melbourne game, specifically. stay in your lane, kiddo.

Carmelo and abrines aren't the turnstiles defensively you and others claim they are. Grant is very active on D, despite the lazy narratives saying otherwise. Huestis has played circles around him.

this is the funny thing about evidence-based claims. it's not me and others making the claims, it's the data. you say grant is 'very active' on defense (which, you know, means nothing). the data says he's not productive there. it's not me saying it.

taking it down to a level you may grasp. if someone said kevin durant was not a great scorer in the nba, how would you respond? not with baseless platitudes. but with research. you know kevin durant scores 30 a game on robust efficiency. it's not your claim, it's the data. just like how teams perform much worse defensively with carmelo anthony or alex abrines in the game. just like our starters with andre roberson have performed at an elite level across multiple seasons and lineup permutations. it's not me. it's the data.

Do you agree he is for the most part a non participant on offense?

i wouldn't go that far, but he's certainly a liability. however, the data supports the claim that our starters are likely better with him than any alternative considering what he brings on the defensive side of the ball. i would definitely like to see a 'big' lineups at times with patterson substituting for roberson, but considering george's and anthony's recent positional history, i don't think this would be a smart change to the starting unit.

This is a joke, right? They have performed well in spite of him (they've featured 1 or 2 hall of famers), not because of him. How someone as smart as you try way too hard to present to be can think otherwise, is confusing.

Also that you guys seem to think 1 perimeter player makes so much of a difference defensively (the stats say so!) is incredible. Defense has to be all 5 guys on board. Westbrook hasn't been. Durant wasn't when he was in okc (look what he did last year defensively). You act like Roberson is a game changer there. He's very good, but defense is a team thing, and hinges on accountability from coaches and stars (as in golden state), not from one good defender. Bad individual defenders can do well in a good team defense if they buy in and are demanded to. Learn the game.

[slick_watts]

This is a joke, right? They have performed well in spite of him (they've featured 1 or 2 hall of famers), not because of him. How someone as smart as you try way too hard to present to be can think otherwise, is confusing.

on offense, it's clearly in spite of him. nobody is disagreeing with you at all that he's a poor offensive player! however, the lineups have performed better than alternatives not because of a difference in offense but the huge difference in defense. we saw this clearly in 2015-16 when waiters got 400 minutes with the starters. the offense was marginally better with waiters but the defense plummeted-- and the starters overall ended up much worse.

i will repeat: nobody on this board is claiming that the thunder lineups perform well offensively because of andre roberson.

Also that you guys seem to think 1 perimeter player makes so much of a difference defensively (the stats say so!) is incredible.

frame it however you want. either andre roberson makes a lot of difference or his presence somehow galvanizes the team into playing superior team defense-- at the end of the day it's his presence (and adams') in those lineups that has led to top defenses.

Defense has to be all 5 guys on board. Westbrook hasn't been. Durant wasn't

i mean, aren't you just debunking yourself here? you're saying westbrook and durant weren't on board defensively, but we still had elite defenses with them in the game with andre roberson and steven adams. you're not crediting team defensive effort here, clearly. but you refuse to credit andre roberson, either. how did this happen, then? magic?

[bondom34]

Just stop that nonsense. What passing ? Who did he pass the ball to to say he improved passing ? He is not playing any P&R, nor facilitating anything beside a simple handoffs at the top of flex actions. He had one simple dump off the floor pass to Adams during whole preseason.

The Robes haters, and Robes lovers out here are just an example how terrible someone's fanatical perception can go.

Reality about him is simple. He should play situational. Guard top dog wings in the league. 16-20 mins per game average. If playing against juggernauts like GSW, Cavs, Spurs, Rockets, use his minutes on the floor wisely, considering he'll contribute on the defensive end of the floor, but hurt you massively on offensive end, considering scouting report he brought himself.

I'm just really terribly dissapointed at the time he alledgedly spent during offseason(s). He didn't improve a single thing in his game during his time in last few seasons, beside his toughness.
He had/has enourmous potential if he could just convert SOME of his wide open shots guys create for him. Its clear that he will never ever be a below average shooter, meaning his lifespan in NBA will be a lot shorter than it could be, when he starts to slow down ...

He passwd that one time to!!!

No, you don't call out a single play as improvement but if you havent noticed it you havent been paying attention. Im not a Roberson"lover". He is a flawed player but a great defender and arguably best perimeter defender in the league who anchored a defense. You remove him fine but its the same terrible argument for starting Kanter over Adams. Its blind ball watching, which is fine if thats the level of analysis anyone wants but I would rather win games. He has historically dragged this defense to above average (unless you argue Russ has been a great defender on the perimeter an is the reason these lineups show as much) and continues to do so. Again if all you do is stare at the ball for 48 minutes fine. But thats not analysis.

I was actually one of the few bball fanatics who pumped his views on the few highlights videos he has over on youtube. I'm actually a fan of him. I dont watch anything else when we are on defensive end, beside him putting his assignmets into a locker, be that the guy who has the ball, or when he chases guys around the screens, or squares up his tasks in post. But also, I'm realistic. Think my views would actually go as unrealistic if I would describe him, and his meaning to our team to some other, educated NBA fan.

See my edit. I dont tout him as some top 5 SG. Bit he has and is pretty easily the best option for the starters. Ill leave it w slick

[spearsy23]

Also that you guys seem to think 1 perimeter player makes so much of a difference defensively (the stats say so!) is incredible. Defense has to be all 5 guys on board. Westbrook hasn't been. Durant wasn't when he was in okc (look what he did last year defensively). You act like Roberson is a game changer there. He's very good, but defense is a team thing, and hinges on accountability from coaches and stars (as in golden state), not from one good defender. Bad individual defenders can do well in a good team defense if they buy in and are demanded to. Learn the game.

What? Did you literally just claim a single wing defender can't make a difference then go on to tear that argument down two sentences later?

[hardenASG13]

Also that you guys seem to think 1 perimeter player makes so much of a difference defensively (the stats say so!) is incredible. Defense has to be all 5 guys on board. Westbrook hasn't been. Durant wasn't when he was in okc (look what he did last year defensively). You act like Roberson is a game changer there. He's very good, but defense is a team thing, and hinges on accountability from coaches and stars (as in golden state), not from one good defender. Bad individual defenders can do well in a good team defense if they buy in and are demanded to. Learn the game.

What? Did you literally just claim a single wing defender can't make a difference then go on to tear that argument down two sentences later?

No, I didn't. Are you not comprehending? I'm saying the notion of playing a defender, who is by far the worst offensive wing a lot is insane, as defense is a team thing. Not sure the confusion there....

[slick_watts]

No, I didn't. Are you not comprehending? I'm saying the notion of playing a defender, who is by far the worst offensive wing a lot is insane, as defense is a team thing. Not sure the confusion there....

no, you are undermining your entire position here.

you refuse to acknowledge that andre roberson has a significant role in the starters' defensive aptitude historically.

you state that westbrook and durant were not committed to defense with the starters.

you state that defense is a team effort, not an individual one.

it is logically impossible to hold these three opinions at the same time when the starters defense has been consistently elite with roberson in the game.

[hardenASG13]

No, I didn't. Are you not comprehending? I'm saying the notion of playing a defender, who is by far the worst offensive wing a lot is insane, as defense is a team thing. Not sure the confusion there....

no, you are undermining your entire position here.

you refuse to acknowledge that andre roberson has a significant role in the starters' defensive aptitude historically.

you state that westbrook and durant were not committed to defense with the starters.

you state that defense is a team effort, not an individual one.

it is logically impossible to hold these three opinions at the same time when the starters defense has been consistently elite with roberson in the game.

I've acknowledged that Roberson plays a significant role in their defense, repeatedly. I just don't think it's to the extent you make it out to be. Could it be because he was the only one, due to the fact that he does nothing else well, that had to consistently D up? Durant sure didn't show the type of defensive effort in consistently in OKC that he displayed last year. It was there, just not demanded of him. That's a culture/accountability issue.

I'm saying 5 guys, who are held accountable and committed on the defensive end, is more important than having 1 guy who brings it defensively every night. Bad individual defenders (abrines) can be in good defenses, if the team is committed and on the Same page on that end. Really, it's true.

[spearsy23]

Bad individual defenders (abrines) can be in good defenses, if the team is committed and on the Same page on that end. Really, it's true.

So your contention is that bad defenders have no effect on a defense while bad offensive players tank the offense? We've literally watched the opposite of that over the last ten years.

[hardenASG13]

Bad individual defenders (abrines) can be in good defenses, if the team is committed and on the Same page on that end. Really, it's true.

So your contention is that bad defenders have no effect on a defense while bad offensive players tank the offense? We've literally watched the opposite of that over the last ten years.

No, didn't say no effect. Maybe your delusional in your effort to argue whatever I say (no worries, you will get at least 1 and 1)

What I'm saying, guys, is that a bad defender can play in a good defense if the team functions well as a defensive unit, as guys need to communicate, switch, help, etc. Offensively, your teammates can't shoot, dribble, or pass for you. At the NBA level, having to play 4 on 5 is an unnecessary thing on either end, except if you use a guy like Roberson, who literally goes unguarded on offense. Can a bad offensive player play in a good offense? Sure. But it's alot easier for the team to help a bad defensive player (particularly a wing who has help behind them) than it is for them to play 4 on 5 offensively, where 1 guy goes unguarded allowing for free double teams and clogged lanes. May not make sense if you've never played ball

[hardenASG13]

You guys dont realize how limited Roberson is compared to other teams limited guys offensively. Itd be fine at any other level, too. Just not the best league in the world.

[ThunderBolt]

You guys dont realize how limited Roberson is compared to other teams limited guys offensively.

I would disagree with this statement considering that most of those with the opposing viewpoint are open to using data to support their argument. He sucks offensively. It’s pretty obvious.

[spearsy23]

Bad individual defenders (abrines) can be in good defenses, if the team is committed and on the Same page on that end. Really, it's true.

So your contention is that bad defenders have no effect on a defense while bad offensive players tank the offense? We've literally watched the opposite of that over the last ten years.

No, didn't say no effect. Maybe your delusional in your effort to argue whatever I say (no worries, you will get at least 1 and 1)

What I'm saying, guys, is that a bad defender can play in a good defense if the team functions well as a defensive unit, as guys need to communicate, switch, help, etc. Offensively, your teammates can't shoot, dribble, or pass for you. At the NBA level, having to play 4 on 5 is an unnecessary thing on either end, except if you use a guy like Roberson, who literally goes unguarded on offense. Can a bad offensive player play in a good offense? Sure. But it's alot easier for the team to help a bad defensive player (particularly a wing who has help behind them) than it is for them to play 4 on 5 offensively, where 1 guy goes unguarded allowing for free double teams and clogged lanes. May not make sense if you've never played ball

You're literally arguing against reality. We have lineup data. We have lineup data with multiple superstars and with only one, and it consistently shows that the offense with Robes functions better than the defense without Robes.

PS: not that you have any reason to believe this but I played low level college ball.

[hardenASG13]

You guys dont realize how limited Roberson is compared to other teams limited guys offensively.

I would disagree with this statement considering that most of those with the opposing viewpoint are open to using data to support their argument. He sucks offensively. It’s pretty obvious.

Any offensive data regarding Roberson can be thrown in the trash. Nobody is guarded like him, and if people think they are they are either delusional or don't pay attention to other teams. It simply isn't the case.

[hardenASG13]

So your contention is that bad defenders have no effect on a defense while bad offensive players tank the offense? We've literally watched the opposite of that over the last ten years.

No, didn't say no effect. Maybe your delusional in your effort to argue whatever I say (no worries, you will get at least 1 and 1)

What I'm saying, guys, is that a bad defender can play in a good defense if the team functions well as a defensive unit, as guys need to communicate, switch, help, etc. Offensively, your teammates can't shoot, dribble, or pass for you. At the NBA level, having to play 4 on 5 is an unnecessary thing on either end, except if you use a guy like Roberson, who literally goes unguarded on offense. Can a bad offensive player play in a good offense? Sure. But it's alot easier for the team to help a bad defensive player (particularly a wing who has help behind them) than it is for them to play 4 on 5 offensively, where 1 guy goes unguarded allowing for free double teams and clogged lanes. May not make sense if you've never played ball

You're literally arguing against reality. We have lineup data. We have lineup data with multiple superstars and with only one, and it consistently shows that the offense with Robes functions better than the defense without Robes.

PS: not that you have any reason to believe this but I played low level college ball.

I believe that....as did I. Just imagine playing against the top team in your league, with a guy the defense didn't guard for 30 minutes a night. Then magnify the talent level by 100. That guy would be pulled asap, no matter how good he was at recovery defense, or fighting through screens, if you wanted to compete. These okc teams have been title contenders for years (aside from last year), it's just mind boggling to me people hide behind the regular season stats, when it's all about the playoffs, particularly late rounds. Can't win a title playing 4 on 5 offensively, particularly when the problem is with a wing player, in the NBA. I want them to win titles, not have a top 5 rated offense or defense.

[Kizz Fastfists]

Any offensive data regarding Roberson can be thrown in the trash. Nobody is guarded like him, and if people think they are they are either delusional or don't pay attention to other teams. It simply isn't the case.

So how much the Thunder outscore opponents with Roberson on the court does not matter? We should just ignore that and put the players in that allow the other team to outscore the Thunder? The scoreboard does not matter. You do realize that is your entire argument, right? Ignore the scoreboard because playing a bad offensive player is somehow worse than winning to you.

[hardenASG13]

This is a joke, right? They have performed well in spite of him (they've featured 1 or 2 hall of famers), not because of him. How someone as smart as you try way too hard to present to be can think otherwise, is confusing.

on offense, it's clearly in spite of him. nobody is disagreeing with you at all that he's a poor offensive player! however, the lineups have performed better than alternatives not because of a difference in offense but the huge difference in defense. we saw this clearly in 2015-16 when waiters got 400 minutes with the starters. the offense was marginally better with waiters but the defense plummeted-- and the starters overall ended up much worse.

i will repeat: nobody on this board is claiming that the thunder lineups perform well offensively because of andre roberson.

Also that you guys seem to think 1 perimeter player makes so much of a difference defensively (the stats say so!) is incredible.

frame it however you want. either andre roberson makes a lot of difference or his presence somehow galvanizes the team into playing superior team defense-- at the end of the day it's his presence (and adams') in those lineups that has led to top defenses.

Defense has to be all 5 guys on board. Westbrook hasn't been. Durant wasn't

i mean, aren't you just debunking yourself here? you're saying westbrook and durant weren't on board defensively, but we still had elite defenses with them in the game with andre roberson and steven adams. you're not crediting team defensive effort here, clearly. but you refuse to credit andre roberson, either. how did this happen, then? magic?

So the great dion waiters ( he was awful in okc) got 400 minutes with the starters, over what 80 games? So that's 5 minutes a game? Sounds like enough time to build chemistry, which apparently isn't a factor?