’16 Draymond Green vs ’17 Russell Westbrook

[OhayoKD]

Is it a cop-out to think they peaked at the same level (that would be 2016 WB but oh well)? Cause I really think so.

okay but then what exactly are we basing 2016 wb>2017 wb off. We know wb has a better 3 point percentage, and we know he has better rs impact data, so do we assume he's a worse playoff player because he didn't get as far?

[OhayoKD]

re/ cast... Thompson, Iggy, Barnes and Bogut versus Ibaka, Waiters, Adams and Roberson. I mean, come on.

The 2015 Warriors were a +20 team over a large sample of their core three playing with any two of Barnes, Iguodala, or Bogut. In 2016 their 5-man lineups are substantially more variable, but 4-man lineups with the core trio and one of those other pieces is still going +18 over similar samples. They underperformed expectations against the Thunder — up to you whether that is just random variance, a bad matchup, a slightly hampered Curry, or some mix — but no, I am pretty confident they could generally be marked as the better collective. If we want to argue that Klay + Iguodala/Barnes/Bogut should be more than whatever we see that difference as, fair enough, but no I do not see the lineup results themselves as basically equal.

Well, fwiw, using ben's full-strength lineups, the warriors graded out at around 70 win while okc graded out at a 65 win srs. Timo's made the case the warriors are underrepresented there so I'll digress.

However, a plausible explanation for the "underperformed explanation" is the thunder themselves elevating in the postseason, and we do have data suggesting westbrook elevated in the yoffs. Pair that with the thunder decisively thumping the 70 srs Spurs and the context of durant wilting, you could reasonably put part of the thunder, being even head to head to westbrook's own elevated performance.

Even if they weren't as good beforehand, some weight should be given to how they performed against each other in the climax of the western of yoffs where they were fairly even. Consider that dray's co-star(curry) throughouhly outplayed westbrook's co-star, and i think one can argue okc pushing the dubs was partially a result of westbrook outplaying draymond

[Cavsfansince84]

I just don't think you can win a championship with Russell Westbrook. Individually he's definitely more talented, but like Iverson his usage rate means your team would be good at best. With Green you can have an elite team

That's really what it comes down to and the fact that Draymond's Warriors minus KD have won 2 titles. So it's not theoretical. In 2016 in particular he was the second best player on the most dominant rs team of all time. With WB the idea that he could be the second best player on a title is still theoretical at best. Which isn't me arguing hard for Dray here either. Just saying there's definitely an argument that has to be made. With WB it's like you always have to overlook how he plays in the playoffs at times(see the final two games of the 2016 wcf and his 2017 playoffs) though with Draymond you get things like kicks and suspensions.

[HeartBreakKid]

I just don't think you can win a championship with Russell Westbrook. Individually he's definitely more talented, but like Iverson his usage rate means your team would be good at best. With Green you can have an elite team

That's really what it comes down to and the fact that Draymond's Warriors minus KD have won 2 titles. So it's not theoretical. In 2016 in particular he was the second best player on the most dominant rs team of all time. With WB the idea that he could be the second best player on a title is still theoretical at best. Which isn't me arguing hard for Dray here either. Just saying there's definitely an argument that has to be made. With WB it's like you always have to overlook how he plays in the playoffs at times(see the final two games of the 2016 wcf and his 2017 playoffs) though with Draymond you get things like kicks and suspensions.

You could use that argument for Green against Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and anyone that hasn't won a ring before.

[Cavsfansince84]

You could use that argument for Green against Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and anyone that hasn't won a ring before.

Not really, they were both considered the best players on their respective teams for most of their careers. It's a difficult comparison to begin with imo.

[HeartBreakKid]

You could use that argument for Green against Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and anyone that hasn't won a ring before.

Not really, they were both considered the best players on their respective teams for most of their careers. It's a difficult comparison to begin with imo.

I mean the "theoretical thing". It's entirely theoretical that you can win a title with Barkley as your best player...it's also equally as theoretical that you can win one with him as your second best player.

Also, Malone was not universally considered better than Stockton for his entire career.

I dont think there is much of an argument to be made that Green won a title as the 2nd best player while Westbrook did not. That isn't really an argument at all actually, that's just stating something that happened.


It makes it rather silly anyway considering the Thunder went to the finals in 2012 and nearly upset the Warrior's themselves. The 16 Warriors were hardly a 1-2 punch as well.

The Thunder beat championship caliber teams, so I don't think it's all that theoretical that you can win a title with Westbrook on your team.

[Cavsfansince84]

I mean the "theoretical thing". It's entirely theoretical that you can win a title with Barkley as your best player...it's also equally as theoretical that you can win one with him as your second best player.

Also, Malone was not universally considered better than Stockton for his entire career.

I dont think there is much of an argument to be made that Green won a title as the 2nd best player while Westbrook did not. That isn't really an argument at all actually, that's just stating something that happened.


It makes it rather silly anyway considering the Thunder went to the finals in 2012 and nearly upset the Warrior's themselves. The 16 Warriors were hardly a 1-2 punch as well.

The Thunder beat championship caliber teams, so I don't think it's all that theoretical that you can win a title with Westbrook on your team.

I think there are varying degrees of theoretical and the relevance of such a term to a comparison such as this one. The issue with Westbrook is that he brings certain innate weaknesses to his teams that most other top 25 atg's don't(with regard to Barkley/Malone). His tendency for 9-30 type shooting games and high turnovers/questionable basketball decisions is why I feel its way more valid to question the ability to build title teams around him(even if he's considered the second best player as he was with KD) due to how much any offense resolves around him.

[AEnigma]

Also, Malone was not universally considered better than Stockton for his entire career.

Maybe not in 1986, but Malone received considerably more all-NBA and MVP votes every year after.

[HeartBreakKid]

I mean the "theoretical thing". It's entirely theoretical that you can win a title with Barkley as your best player...it's also equally as theoretical that you can win one with him as your second best player.

Also, Malone was not universally considered better than Stockton for his entire career.

I dont think there is much of an argument to be made that Green won a title as the 2nd best player while Westbrook did not. That isn't really an argument at all actually, that's just stating something that happened.


It makes it rather silly anyway considering the Thunder went to the finals in 2012 and nearly upset the Warrior's themselves. The 16 Warriors were hardly a 1-2 punch as well.

The Thunder beat championship caliber teams, so I don't think it's all that theoretical that you can win a title with Westbrook on your team.

I think there are varying degrees of theoretical and the relevance of such a term to a comparison such as this one. The issue with Westbrook is that he brings certain innate weaknesses to his teams that most other top 25 atg's don't(with regard to Barkley/Malone). His tendency for 9-30 type shooting games and high turnovers/questionable basketball decisions is why I feel its way more valid to question the ability to build title teams around him(even if he's considered the second best player as he was with KD) due to how much any offense resolves around him.

That's just a bias over a playing style. In terms of effectiveness the Thunder were serious title contenders. That isn't very hypothetical.

You can argue about his play style or how good he is, but the "theoretical" argument I don't think is a very good one. Unless you are simply saying the Thunder were never real contenders.

[Cavsfansince84]

That's just a bias over a playing style. In terms of effectiveness the Thunder were serious title contenders. That isn't very hypothetical.

You can argue about his play style or how good he is, but the "theoretical" argument I don't think is a very good one. Unless you are simply saying the Thunder were never real contenders.

I don't see playing style as something that can be strictly chalked up to bias. To me WB is fundamentally flawed in some ways that most top 5 players aren't. Call it bias or simply call it player evaluation based on both results and watching his career enfold. As it pertains to this thread, I think which player I'd prefer would depend mostly on teammates.

[NO-KG-AI]

I mean the "theoretical thing". It's entirely theoretical that you can win a title with Barkley as your best player...it's also equally as theoretical that you can win one with him as your second best player.

Also, Malone was not universally considered better than Stockton for his entire career.

I dont think there is much of an argument to be made that Green won a title as the 2nd best player while Westbrook did not. That isn't really an argument at all actually, that's just stating something that happened.


It makes it rather silly anyway considering the Thunder went to the finals in 2012 and nearly upset the Warrior's themselves. The 16 Warriors were hardly a 1-2 punch as well.

The Thunder beat championship caliber teams, so I don't think it's all that theoretical that you can win a title with Westbrook on your team.

I think there are varying degrees of theoretical and the relevance of such a term to a comparison such as this one. The issue with Westbrook is that he brings certain innate weaknesses to his teams that most other top 25 atg's don't(with regard to Barkley/Malone). His tendency for 9-30 type shooting games and high turnovers/questionable basketball decisions is why I feel its way more valid to question the ability to build title teams around him(even if he's considered the second best player as he was with KD) due to how much any offense resolves around him.

That's just a bias over a playing style. In terms of effectiveness the Thunder were serious title contenders. That isn't very hypothetical.

You can argue about his play style or how good he is, but the "theoretical" argument I don't think is a very good one. Unless you are simply saying the Thunder were never real contenders.

They were contenders, but they were never as good as a team with two "mvp" players should be. Some blame goes on the cast, some goes on Durant, some goes on Westbrook, etc.... but I think Durant is far more impactful, better, and easier to play with. It's Russell that you have to make all these weird concessions and changes to play with, and it hasn't exactly worked for him at all despite playing with a bunch of all NBA guys in his career.

Some of the players that will go down without any NBA titles would be foaming at the mouth at the idea of playing with as many talented stars as Russell had the chance to try and make it work with and failed spectacularly because of his style and flaws.

[ronnymac2]

They were contenders, but they were never as good as a team with two "mvp" players should be. Some blame goes on the cast, some goes on Durant, some goes on Westbrook, etc.... but I think Durant is far more impactful, better, and easier to play with. It's Russell that you have to make all these weird concessions and changes to play with, and it hasn't exactly worked for him at all despite playing with a bunch of all NBA guys in his career.

Some of the players that will go down without any NBA titles would be foaming at the mouth at the idea of playing with as many talented stars as Russell had the chance to try and make it work with and failed spectacularly because of his style and flaws.

2012 - 6.44 SRS (3rd), NBA Finals loss to Miami
2013 - 9.15 SRS (1st), RW injured in playoffs
2014 - 6.66 SRS (3rd), WCF Loss to eventual champion 8.00 SRS (1st) Spurs w/ Ibaka out for two games
2015 - KD injury
2016 - 7.09 SRS (3rd), defeat 10+ SRS Spurs, Almost beat 10 SRS GSW

That's a ridiculously successful five-year stretch even with some bad injury luck. What exactly is the expectation for the team?

[NO-KG-AI]

They were contenders, but they were never as good as a team with two "mvp" players should be. Some blame goes on the cast, some goes on Durant, some goes on Westbrook, etc.... but I think Durant is far more impactful, better, and easier to play with. It's Russell that you have to make all these weird concessions and changes to play with, and it hasn't exactly worked for him at all despite playing with a bunch of all NBA guys in his career.

Some of the players that will go down without any NBA titles would be foaming at the mouth at the idea of playing with as many talented stars as Russell had the chance to try and make it work with and failed spectacularly because of his style and flaws.

2012 - 6.44 SRS (3rd), NBA Finals loss to Miami
2013 - 9.15 SRS (1st), RW injured in playoffs
2014 - 6.66 SRS (3rd), WCF Loss to eventual champion 8.00 SRS (1st) Spurs w/ Ibaka out for two games
2015 - KD injury
2016 - 7.09 SRS (3rd), defeat 10+ SRS Spurs, Almost beat 10 SRS GSW

That's a ridiculously successful five-year stretch even with some bad injury luck. What exactly is the expectation for the team?

I don't think 0 titles and 1 finals appearance where they were comfortably backdoor swept is an insanely successful stretch for two guys that won MVPs and played together for 8 years. If Westbrook was actually as good as Durant or on his level like people are trying to imply, they'd have probably broken through, and more than once. A bunch of 3rd/4th place finishes on the year isn't an "insanely" successful run for two MVP talents on one team.

I don't think they were underachieving or choking btw, I just think they weren't actually good enough to finish it out because Westbrook isn't reliable enough as your second star to carry a star heavy team deep in the playoffs because he's a menace to your own efficiency, on both ends.

[Asianiac_24]

I just don't think you can win a championship with Russell Westbrook. Individually he's definitely more talented, but like Iverson his usage rate means your team would be good at best. With Green you can have an elite team

That's really what it comes down to and the fact that Draymond's Warriors minus KD have won 2 titles. So it's not theoretical. In 2016 in particular he was the second best player on the most dominant rs team of all time. With WB the idea that he could be the second best player on a title is still theoretical at best. Which isn't me arguing hard for Dray here either. Just saying there's definitely an argument that has to be made. With WB it's like you always have to overlook how he plays in the playoffs at times(see the final two games of the 2016 wcf and his 2017 playoffs) though with Draymond you get things like kicks and suspensions.

You could use that argument for Green against Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and anyone that hasn't won a ring before.

Charles Barkley and Karl Malone doesn't shoot 50 TS% and average 5 TOs a game and take the most shots on the team with a ATG scorer on his own team. RWB is a fundamentally flawed player that severely limits the ceiling on your team.

[Asianiac_24]

They were contenders, but they were never as good as a team with two "mvp" players should be. Some blame goes on the cast, some goes on Durant, some goes on Westbrook, etc.... but I think Durant is far more impactful, better, and easier to play with. It's Russell that you have to make all these weird concessions and changes to play with, and it hasn't exactly worked for him at all despite playing with a bunch of all NBA guys in his career.

Some of the players that will go down without any NBA titles would be foaming at the mouth at the idea of playing with as many talented stars as Russell had the chance to try and make it work with and failed spectacularly because of his style and flaws.

2012 - 6.44 SRS (3rd), NBA Finals loss to Miami
2013 - 9.15 SRS (1st), RW injured in playoffs
2014 - 6.66 SRS (3rd), WCF Loss to eventual champion 8.00 SRS (1st) Spurs w/ Ibaka out for two games
2015 - KD injury
2016 - 7.09 SRS (3rd), defeat 10+ SRS Spurs, Almost beat 10 SRS GSW

That's a ridiculously successful five-year stretch even with some bad injury luck. What exactly is the expectation for the team?

I don't think 0 titles and 1 finals appearance where they were comfortably backdoor swept is an insanely successful stretch for two guys that won MVPs and played together for 8 years. If Westbrook was actually as good as Durant or on his level like people are trying to imply, they'd have probably broken through, and more than once. A bunch of 3rd/4th place finishes on the year isn't an "insanely" successful run for two MVP talents on one team.

I don't think they were underachieving or choking btw, I just think they weren't actually good enough to finish it out because Westbrook isn't reliable enough as your second star to carry a star heavy team deep in the playoffs because he's a menace to your own efficiency, on both ends.

Westbrook has played with more talent than arguably anyone in history of the league and he still hasn't won yet. He has played with LeBron James, Anthony Davis, Kevin Durant, James Harden, Paul George, Bradley Beal. That's 3 legit top 20 players in history (LeBron, Durant, Harden), 2 MVP level players (AD, George), and 1 All-NBA player (Beal). If Westbrook isn't fundamentally flawed, he would have had at least 1 title by now.

[OhayoKD]

westbrook killing this poll while struggling to make even the top 50 in the peaks project. Daaamn