’16 Draymond Green vs ’17 Russell Westbrook

[Matt15]

Who was the better player?

[parsnips33]

Ooh I like this one

[Jaivl]

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.

[coastalmarker99]

This comparison is downright insulting.

It’s Westbrook by a mile and I say that as someone who dislikes him.

[AdagioPace]

We've seen Westbrook co-leading an amazing team in 2016 (I assume the 2017 version is not too different) so I'm not sure Dray's main argument (ceiling raising) would have a big advantage here.

of course , Dray +/- stuff and impact metrics were almost Curry-level and he would fit like a glove anywhere (mostly due to his defense).

I actually think Westbrook was as good as Durant and Harden in these couple years, so maybe I feel a bit safer picking him.

[OdomFan]

uh. well Green is better at being a big man, and Westbrook is better at being a smaller player. Not sure where else the comparison can go.

[Mogspan]

If I want to make a horrible team mid, Westbrook by a lot. If I want to make a mid/good team good/great, Draymond by a lot. There are fewer than 10 guys at any given time who can be legitimate #1 options on championship-caliber teams; if you have one (even peak Brodie wasn't one of those guys), Draymond is like the best guy you could have next to him this past decade (other than AD).

[parsnips33]

We've seen Westbrook co-leading an amazing team in 2016 (I assume the 2017 version is not too different) so I'm not sure Dray's main argument (ceiling raising) would have a big advantage here.

of course , Dray +/- stuff and impact metrics were almost Curry-level and he would fit like a glove anywhere (mostly due to his defense).

I actually think Westbrook was as good as Durant and Harden in these couple years, so maybe I feel a bit safer picking him.

Draymond co-lead an even better team that same season no?

[Chronz]

We've seen Westbrook co-leading an amazing team in 2016 (I assume the 2017 version is not too different) so I'm not sure Dray's main argument (ceiling raising) would have a big advantage here.

of course , Dray +/- stuff and impact metrics were almost Curry-level and he would fit like a glove anywhere (mostly due to his defense).

I actually think Westbrook was as good as Durant and Harden in these couple years, so maybe I feel a bit safer picking him.

You dont have Draymond as the co-leader with Curry when they were beating KD and Russ?

I think its a decent conversation but we might be underrating RWB here.

[Chronz]

Ooh I like this one

lol, I came here to say this exact phrase then I noticed you again said what I was about to say.

[tsherkin]

This is an interesting question.

For my part, even though I dislike him, this is apex Westbrook when he actually had humongous impact. I can't really countenance a nice roleplayer who was an important glue guy to his team as being superior to a guy who was (in the given season, anyway) legitimately an MVP-caliber offensive centerpiece. For the Warriors, Green was obviously the better choice, but in a vacuum, Westbrook's offensive impact at his peak dramatically outstrips anything that Draymond has ever shown in his entirety as a player, IMHO.

[RCM88x]

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.

Like that you brought up 2016 WB here, because it's probably the best proxy we have for him being in an actual elite team situation. There's probably little different between the two years of WB here other than context/situation (at least in my opinion).

I'd agree they're probably about equal though. WB in 2016 was absolutely an elite caliber player on an elite caliber team, and arguably the best performing player on that team. While he certainly had drawbacks and issues that were magnified increasingly as the years went on, so does Draymond. One could argue that WB just didn't have the support around him to cover for those issues like Draymond did.

Boiling things down to the most basic level though I think in terms of "Championships Added" I'd give Draymond a clear edge, as he's a good bit better in his role than WB was, but if we care about "wins added above replacement" then WB probably has a clear edge here aswell.

[parsnips33]

This is an interesting question.

For my part, even though I dislike him, this is apex Westbrook when he actually had humongous impact. I can't really countenance a nice roleplayer who was an important glue guy to his team as being superior to a guy who was (in the given season, anyway) legitimately an MVP-caliber offensive centerpiece. For the Warriors, Green was obviously the better choice, but in a vacuum, Westbrook's offensive impact at his peak dramatically outstrips anything that Draymond has ever shown in his entirety as a player, IMHO.

"nice roleplayer who was an important glue guy" describes Shaun Livingston

[AussieBuck]

I'm assuming this is in response to the peaks project because my mind was going here too seeing Green get nominated and Westbrook being ignored.

[tsherkin]

"nice roleplayer who was an important glue guy" describes Shaun Livingston

I don't always have the time to author an essay appreciating the full intricacies of a player.

Draymond's defensive value was great. His passing was very helpful. He was, and never has been in any way, the same value as a franchise cornerstone unless we are speaking of the Golden State context in particular. That's why I made the distinction of absent team-specific context.

Anyway, yours is a semantic point that I don't really wanna get into too deeply. What exists between roleplayer and star? How fine should we paint the gradient? Draymond was good. That year in particular, he wasn't an oxygen thief about pulling his shot when he was open, and was actually hitting threes. By far his best scoring season. Completely useless between the rim and the 3pt line, which wasn't ideal, but Golden State had other scorers for that, and his value obviously extended from D and moving the ball, which he did quite well. Was he Damon Jones or Boobie Gibson to Lebron James in Cleveland? No, he was obviously much better than that, and was just beginning his All-Star peak. Was he a focal player on the team, the foundation around which they were built? No, he was not their franchise player, but he was very important to their success. But he's being compared to a guy who was good enough to be the cornerstone for a contending franchise, and Draymond's value was fairly specific to his context. Leastwise, the maximum expression of that value, whereas Westie was a little more portable.

[parsnips33]

"nice roleplayer who was an important glue guy" describes Shaun Livingston

I don't always have the time to author an essay appreciating the full intricacies of a player.

Draymond's defensive value was great. His passing was very helpful. He was, and never has been in any way, the same value as a franchise cornerstone unless we are speaking of the Golden State context in particular. That's why I made the distinction of absent team-specific context.

Anyway, yours is a semantic point that I don't really wanna get into too deeply. What exists between roleplayer and star? How fine should we paint the gradient? Draymond was good. That year in particular, he wasn't an oxygen thief about pulling his shot when he was open, and was actually hitting threes. By far his best scoring season. Completely useless between the rim and the 3pt line, which wasn't ideal, but Golden State had other scorers for that, and his value obviously extended from D and moving the ball, which he did quite well. Was he Damon Jones or Boobie Gibson to Lebron James in Cleveland? No, he was obviously much better than that, and was just beginning his All-Star peak. Was he a focal player on the team, the foundation around which they were built? No, he was not their franchise player, but he was very important to their success. But he's being compared to a guy who was good enough to be the cornerstone for a contending franchise, and Draymond's value was fairly specific to his context. Leastwise, the maximum expression of that value, whereas Westie was a little more portable.

He was the best defensive player in the league anchoring an elite defense. Offensively, he was the lead distributor (lead team in assists) and amongst the most effective screensetters in the league. The guy was absolutely elite - a roleplayer in PPG only.

Not to say it's crazy to take Russ over him, but I don't this can be summed up as "MVP vs nice roleplayer"

[Cavsfansince84]

We've seen Westbrook co-leading an amazing team in 2016 (I assume the 2017 version is not too different) so I'm not sure Dray's main argument (ceiling raising) would have a big advantage here.

of course , Dray +/- stuff and impact metrics were almost Curry-level and he would fit like a glove anywhere (mostly due to his defense).

I actually think Westbrook was as good as Durant and Harden in these couple years, so maybe I feel a bit safer picking him.

Using 2016 as the example Draymond co led and was the second best player on a team that beat WB in 7 games where you'd probably say he co led and was the second best player. So I think it could be argued either way.

[tsherkin]

He was the best defensive player in the league anchoring an elite defense.

Yep. Very, very good in that respect.

Offensively, he was the lead distributor (lead team in assists) and amongst the most effective screensetters in the league.

Him leading in assists means only so much given the way the Golden State offense actually works to produce shots. They could trust him at the top of the arc to move the ball to guys coming off screens, which generated a bunch of Rondo assists, and he could PnR and such. Like, I don't to overdescribe this because I acknowledge he was very good, and I don't want to diminish his relevance as a playmaker, but specifically the notion of leading his team in assists means only so much.

The guy was absolutely elite - a roleplayer in PPG only.

Not to say it's crazy to take Russ over him, but I don't this can be summed up as "MVP vs nice roleplayer"

Sure it can. You're welcome to your semantic definition of roleplayer and I am to mine. I think I made very clear that I put them into distinct categories of relevance, considered portability and team-independent value added. That's the analysis. Don't get hung up on the labels, because we don't use the words the same way.

[parsnips33]

He was the best defensive player in the league anchoring an elite defense.

Yep. Very, very good in that respect.

Offensively, he was the lead distributor (lead team in assists) and amongst the most effective screensetters in the league.

Him leading in assists means only so much given the way the Golden State offense actually works to produce shots. They could trust him at the top of the arc to move the ball to guys coming off screens, which generated a bunch of Rondo assists, and he could PnR and such. Like, I don't to overdescribe this because I acknowledge he was very good, and I don't want to diminish his relevance as a playmaker, but specifically the notion of leading his team in assists means only so much.

The guy was absolutely elite - a roleplayer in PPG only.

Not to say it's crazy to take Russ over him, but I don't this can be summed up as "MVP vs nice roleplayer"

Sure it can. You're welcome to your semantic definition of roleplayer and I am to mine. I think I made very clear that I put them into distinct categories of relevance, considered portability and team-independent value added. That's the analysis. Don't get hung up on the labels, because we don't use the words the same way.

Not sure we agree on where the bulk of Draymond's value as a passer is - he wasn't really a top of the key post hub in the mold of a Joakim Noah. I think the majority of his value comes from extremely high level interior passing (think his ability to create on the move out of the short roll with a fraction of a second to survey the floor) and vision in transition. Considering how prevalent PNR is in today's league and the fact that pretty much every team can benefit from creating more transition scoring opportunities, I don't see that as particularly team specific.

Am I missing the case for Westbrook's portability and team-independent value? It's not like he's been particularly impactful outside of OKC teams that were more or less built around him.

[tsherkin]

Not sure we agree on where the bulk of Draymond's value as a passer is - he wasn't really a top of the key post hub in the mold of a Joakim Noah. I think the majority of his value comes from extremely high level interior passing (think his ability to create on the move out of the short roll with a fraction of a second to survey the floor) and vision in transition. Considering how prevalent PNR is in today's league and the fact that pretty much every team can benefit from creating more transition scoring opportunities, I don't see that as particularly team specific.

I'm with you here, I was making a note about how some of his assists were generated, not his primary role. That's why I was specifically mentioning the assist production as not being a meaningful marker.

Am I missing the case for Westbrook's portability and team-independent value? It's not like he's been particularly impactful outside of OKC teams that were more or less built around him.

If you're looking places other than 2017, then yeah, you're missing where my attention is focused. This comparison is about 2017. In his other years, as injuries or other variable performances eroded his overall value, Westbrook's merits relative to Draymond change, for sure. I can absolutely agree with that. In 2017 specifically (the comparison here), however, different story.