16 Draymond or 17 Westbrook

[Doctor MJ]

Both of these players two respective peaks, which season is better, and why? I'll be hoping for long, in-depth discussion!

I'd go with Draymond because I think he works better on a contending team.

Did Westbrook successfully play on a contending team? Yes.
Did Westbrook synergize with the other stars on that contending team? No.
Did that failure to synergize make it harder for them to win the title? Yes.
Do I think Westbrook's inability to synergize with other talent would be a problem that held his teams back generally? Yup.

[lessthanjake]

2016 Draymond just has too many signals telling us he was at a level only clear GOAT candidates clearly supercede.

Draymond's 2016 Playoffs Without Curry

Entire playoffs: 359 minutes, +7.9 rORtg -8.9 rDRtg, +16.8 rNRtg

vs. Houston: 144 minutes: +7.0 rORtg, -14.9 rDRtg, +21.9 rNRtg
vs. Portland: 136 minutes: +8.2 rORtg, -.9 rDRtg, +9.1 rNRtg
vs. OK City: 29 minutes: -13.5 rORtg, -1.8 rDRtg, -11.7 rNRtg
vs. Cleveland: 52 minutes: +14.8 rORtg, -19.6 rDRtg, +34.4 rNRtg

People can say "Houston and Portland were average teams," and even if they are, players do NOT have these types of numbers, especially given that they played entire games without another great player whose minutes were replaced by a far, far lesser player as is the case when there are injuries. The sample is limited, but we have all of 2016 and then the playoffs when Draymond's massive impact was felt everywhere. Jokic, who was voted in already and some have as the second highest peak of all time, cannot say he has some of these numbers. That doesn't mean that Jokic is lower, not as good, etc., but these are ridiculous numbers.

Players have all kinds of numbers across 359-minute samples. It’s quite a small sample.

Does Jokic in the playoffs? Do these other players have playoffs series played mostly without the other best player leading to these numbers AND a regular season like Draymond's AND a Finals series like his including game 7? You're waiving away a lot.

No, I’m specifically waving away the idea of drawing any real conclusion from numbers in a 359-minute sample. And that’s true whether the data for someone in a sample like that looks good, bad, or somewhere in the middle. It’s just a sample we’d expect to be very noisy. It’s not completely useless and can be thrown on the pile of info we have, but on its own it’s not worth very much. I actually largely agree with your conclusion about Draymond though, because we do actually have other information that looks great for him too.

[homecourtloss]

Players have all kinds of numbers across 359-minute samples. It’s quite a small sample.

Does Jokic in the playoffs? Do these other players have playoffs series played mostly without the other best player leading to these numbers AND a regular season like Draymond's AND a Finals series like his including game 7? You're waiving away a lot.

No, I’m specifically waving away the idea of drawing any real conclusion from numbers in a 359-minute sample. And that’s true whether the data for someone in a sample like that looks good, bad, or somewhere in the middle. It’s just a sample we’d expect to be very noisy. It’s not completely useless and can be thrown on the pile of info we have, but on its own it’s not worth very much. I actually largely agree with your conclusion about Draymond though, because we do actually have other information that looks great for him too.

It's 359 minutes with playoff series played primarily without the other best player on the back of an incredible regular season. Do you know of comparable results that are also "noisy" like this?

[lessthanjake]

Does Jokic in the playoffs? Do these other players have playoffs series played mostly without the other best player leading to these numbers AND a regular season like Draymond's AND a Finals series like his including game 7? You're waiving away a lot.

No, I’m specifically waving away the idea of drawing any real conclusion from numbers in a 359-minute sample. And that’s true whether the data for someone in a sample like that looks good, bad, or somewhere in the middle. It’s just a sample we’d expect to be very noisy. It’s not completely useless and can be thrown on the pile of info we have, but on its own it’s not worth very much. I actually largely agree with your conclusion about Draymond though, because we do actually have other information that looks great for him too.

It's 359 minutes with playoff series played primarily without the other best player on the back of an incredible regular season. Do you know of comparable results that are also "noisy" like this?

The exact situation the 359 minutes was in doesn’t change how noisy 359 minutes are. It’s the size of the sample that makes that the case.

And since it’s a very specific scenario you’re referring to (superstar player on great team gets injured for a relatively short period of time in playoffs + team has another genuinely really good player to look at this data for + the rest of the supporting cast is actually good/deep), and we don’t have this type of data for most of NBA history, I don’t think there’s really enough genuinely similar examples to actually act like we can look at what’s happened and decide from that whether a decidedly small sample of minutes is somehow not actually very noisy in this particular type of context. What we *can* do is just look at the size of the sample and come to the obvious conclusion that it’s a small sample that is bound to be noisy.

That said, I will say that the first analogy that came to my mind was Kawhi going down in 2021. And I just looked it up and the Clippers had a +5.44 net rating in Paul George’s 333 minutes in the games Kawhi didn’t play in those playoffs. Since the opponents in those games were actually really good, that’s like a +12.2 relative net rating in those minutes in games without Kawhi (calculated using a possession-weighted average of the opponents’ net ratings). And it’s even better if we look at all the non-Kawhi minutes. For all Paul George’s minutes without Kawhi in those entire playoffs (i.e. also including non-Kawhi minutes in games Kawhi played in), the Clippers had a +15.24 relative net rating in 414 minutes. That looks real similar to the data you provided for 2016 Draymond, and I really wouldn’t say 2021 Paul George was anywhere near a GOAT-level player (and FWIW nor would I say he was as good as 2016 Draymond). Definitely seems like an example of this type of data in this type of sample size being super noisy!

[Jaivl]

Both of these players two respective peaks, which season is better, and why? I'll be hoping for long, in-depth discussion!

Did Westbrook synergize with the other stars on that contending team? No.
Did that failure to synergize make it harder for them to win the title? Yes.

In what way? If you're speaking about the Houston or Lakers debacles then sure, fair game.

But Oklahoma was a resounding success in terms of quality of play, and the team peaked higher (in terms of full strength lineup net rating) the more primacy Westbrook had. If anything, I'd argue both superstars complemented each other perfectly: a mediocre finisher / top tier creator and a mediocre creator / top tier finisher. Is Durant's archtype more portable, easier to fit with? Yes, of course. That's a big part of why he's better.

He also fit alright with Paul George, even if he was pretty cooked as an impact player at that point (arguably already on 2018, probably on 2019, and certainly by 2020). I'm pretty sure we don't have a Harden/Paul situation on our hands here, and even then... that still worked pretty well

Both of these players two respective peaks, which season is better, and why? I'll be hoping for long, in-depth discussion!

I'd go with Draymond because I think he works better on a contending team.

Prooobably true, but the difference is overstated, and depends in great part on roster construction.

Many 40 or 50 win squads are flawed teams that would really like a Draymond to supercharge everything. I feel the 2016 Celtics are a good example. The Blazers too, the Rockets. But there are also many 40 to 50 win squads that are already solid teams, with high IQ players, defenders, shooters, good secondary passers... that are overmatched and desperately lacking a superstar that slots everybody into a better role. 2016 Atlanta, god, he fits like a glove there. Miami, Detroit, Memphis...

Then again, in reality those teams would need to trade a lot of talent in return, you can't just add a guy. I mean, the Warriors managed to cram 2 and then 3 superstars (2016/2017 Dray absolutely is one) + 2 stars on the same payroll, but that was a miracle and a huge exception. You'd have to consider the player in question being on the team in the first place... domino effect... alternate realities, yadda yadda yadda, I'm rambling right now. The point is, floor raising is still pretty important even when considering contenders, because happening to play on a 50+ win team (without the star) is extremely rare. Usually the talent level won't be that high.

(Of course Westbrook would surely be better at elevating bad teams, but that's pretty much completely irrelevant anyway. Counterproductive if anything, lol. And Draymond probably gets, erm, "injured" or punches a guy in frustration or something)

[falcolombardi]

Does Jokic in the playoffs? Do these other players have playoffs series played mostly without the other best player leading to these numbers AND a regular season like Draymond's AND a Finals series like his including game 7? You're waiving away a lot.

No, I’m specifically waving away the idea of drawing any real conclusion from numbers in a 359-minute sample. And that’s true whether the data for someone in a sample like that looks good, bad, or somewhere in the middle. It’s just a sample we’d expect to be very noisy. It’s not completely useless and can be thrown on the pile of info we have, but on its own it’s not worth very much. I actually largely agree with your conclusion about Draymond though, because we do actually have other information that looks great for him too.

It's 359 minutes with playol5ayerff series played primarily without the other best player on the back of an incredible regular season. Do you know of comparable results that are also "noisy" like this?

Yeah 359 minutes in playoffs is a useful data sample for the purpose of evaluating someone withour their co star

Cannot help but wonder if such a sample size would be so nitpicked with different players involved

[homecourtloss]

No, I’m specifically waving away the idea of drawing any real conclusion from numbers in a 359-minute sample. And that’s true whether the data for someone in a sample like that looks good, bad, or somewhere in the middle. It’s just a sample we’d expect to be very noisy. It’s not completely useless and can be thrown on the pile of info we have, but on its own it’s not worth very much. I actually largely agree with your conclusion about Draymond though, because we do actually have other information that looks great for him too.

It's 359 minutes with playoff series played primarily without the other best player on the back of an incredible regular season. Do you know of comparable results that are also "noisy" like this?

The exact situation the 359 minutes was in doesn’t change how noisy 359 minutes are. It’s the size of the sample that makes that the case.

And since it’s a very specific scenario you’re referring to (superstar player on great team gets injured for a relatively short period of time in playoffs + team has another genuinely really good player to look at this data for + the rest of the supporting cast is actually good/deep), and we don’t have this type of data for most of NBA history, I don’t think there’s really enough genuinely similar examples to actually act like we can look at what’s happened and decide from that whether a decidedly small sample of minutes is somehow not actually very noisy in this particular type of context. What we *can* do is just look at the size of the sample and come to the obvious conclusion that it’s a small sample that is bound to be noisy.

That said, I will say that the first analogy that came to my mind was Kawhi going down in 2021. And I just looked it up and the Clippers had a +5.44 net rating in Paul George’s 333 minutes in the games Kawhi didn’t play in those playoffs. Since the opponents in those games were actually really good, that’s like a +12.2 relative net rating in those minutes in games without Kawhi (calculated using a possession-weighted average of the opponents’ net ratings). And it’s even better if we look at all the non-Kawhi minutes. For all Paul George’s minutes without Kawhi in those entire playoffs (i.e. also including non-Kawhi minutes in games Kawhi played in), the Clippers had a +15.24 relative net rating in 414 minutes. That looks real similar to the data you provided for 2016 Draymond, and I really wouldn’t say 2021 Paul George was anywhere near a GOAT-level player (and FWIW nor would I say he was as good as 2016 Draymond). Definitely seems like an example of this type of data in this type of sample size being super noisy!

Nobody is saying the bolded for Draymond either, but this was a thread about Westbrook and Draymond. As for PG13, his peak is also highly underrated--there's a reason he's a career 99th percentile impact player in the databall age.

No, I’m specifically waving away the idea of drawing any real conclusion from numbers in a 359-minute sample. And that’s true whether the data for someone in a sample like that looks good, bad, or somewhere in the middle. It’s just a sample we’d expect to be very noisy. It’s not completely useless and can be thrown on the pile of info we have, but on its own it’s not worth very much. I actually largely agree with your conclusion about Draymond though, because we do actually have other information that looks great for him too.

It's 359 minutes with playol5ayerff series played primarily without the other best player on the back of an incredible regular season. Do you know of comparable results that are also "noisy" like this?

Yeah 359 minutes in playoffs is a useful data sample for the purpose of evaluating someone withour their co star

Cannot help but wonder if such a sample size would be so nitpicked with different players involved

Pretty much.

[lessthanjake]

It's 359 minutes with playoff series played primarily without the other best player on the back of an incredible regular season. Do you know of comparable results that are also "noisy" like this?

The exact situation the 359 minutes was in doesn’t change how noisy 359 minutes are. It’s the size of the sample that makes that the case.

And since it’s a very specific scenario you’re referring to (superstar player on great team gets injured for a relatively short period of time in playoffs + team has another genuinely really good player to look at this data for + the rest of the supporting cast is actually good/deep), and we don’t have this type of data for most of NBA history, I don’t think there’s really enough genuinely similar examples to actually act like we can look at what’s happened and decide from that whether a decidedly small sample of minutes is somehow not actually very noisy in this particular type of context. What we *can* do is just look at the size of the sample and come to the obvious conclusion that it’s a small sample that is bound to be noisy.

That said, I will say that the first analogy that came to my mind was Kawhi going down in 2021. And I just looked it up and the Clippers had a +5.44 net rating in Paul George’s 333 minutes in the games Kawhi didn’t play in those playoffs. Since the opponents in those games were actually really good, that’s like a +12.2 relative net rating in those minutes in games without Kawhi (calculated using a possession-weighted average of the opponents’ net ratings). And it’s even better if we look at all the non-Kawhi minutes. For all Paul George’s minutes without Kawhi in those entire playoffs (i.e. also including non-Kawhi minutes in games Kawhi played in), the Clippers had a +15.24 relative net rating in 414 minutes. That looks real similar to the data you provided for 2016 Draymond, and I really wouldn’t say 2021 Paul George was anywhere near a GOAT-level player (and FWIW nor would I say he was as good as 2016 Draymond). Definitely seems like an example of this type of data in this type of sample size being super noisy!

Nobody is saying the bolded for Draymond either, but this was a thread about Westbrook and Draymond. As for PG13, his peak is also highly underrated--there's a reason he's a career 99th percentile impact player in the databall age.

You started your first post in this exchange with the following statement: “2016 Draymond just has too many signals telling us he was at a level only clear GOAT candidates clearly supercede.” Saying that someone can have the types of numbers you provided for Draymond while not being anywhere near a GOAT-level player is pretty clearly responsive to that statement. Perhaps I should’ve worded it as saying Paul George is not even near the tier just below GOAT-level, but I think the point I was making was obvious.

In any event, you are sidestepping the fact that literally the first analogous example I could think of actually yielded similar results. The sample is just small such that there’s a ton of noise. 2016 Draymond and 2021 Paul George were very good players, but neither of those guys were going to have +15 or +16 net ratings without those star guys in an actually large sample. The fact that they did in a very small sample is because the sample is small and noisy.

It's 359 minutes with playol5ayerff series played primarily without the other best player on the back of an incredible regular season. Do you know of comparable results that are also "noisy" like this?

Yeah 359 minutes in playoffs is a useful data sample for the purpose of evaluating someone withour their co star

Cannot help but wonder if such a sample size would be so nitpicked with different players involved

Pretty much.

Not quite sure why you guys find it so difficult to not make weird personal digs and insinuations of bad faith. I know you’re white hot with fury that your toxic compadres got banned (which I assume is why these sorts of comments have increased recently), but they did that to themselves so I don’t know why you’re directing your frustration towards me. Please try to find a way to get past it and actually engage in a way that isn’t so abrasive.

[Doctor MJ]

Both of these players two respective peaks, which season is better, and why? I'll be hoping for long, in-depth discussion!

Did Westbrook synergize with the other stars on that contending team? No.
Did that failure to synergize make it harder for them to win the title? Yes.

In what way? If you're speaking about the Houston or Lakers debacles then sure, fair game.

But Oklahoma was a resounding success in terms of quality of play, and the team peaked higher (in terms of full strength lineup net rating) the more primacy Westbrook had. If anything, I'd argue both superstars complemented each other perfectly: a mediocre finisher / top tier creator and a mediocre creator / top tier finisher. Is Durant's archtype more portable, easier to fit with? Yes, of course. That's a big part of why he's better.

He also fit alright with Paul George, even if he was pretty cooked as an impact player at that point (arguably already on 2018, probably on 2019, and certainly by 2020). I'm pretty sure we don't have a Harden/Paul situation on our hands here, and even then... that still worked pretty well

Huh. How could it possibly peak when Westbrook had most primacy when that happened after Durant decided to go away?

But to try to cut to the quick of the matter: To me those Thunder teams were frustrating to watch because Westbrook just didn't have the BBIQ to do the job properly. The phenomenon of Westbrook not seeming to try to get Durant the ball on some critical possessions - to Durant's visible frustration - was part and parcel with watching them play.

If you don't agree on that, then I don't think we can get anywhere. Just two different experiences watching.

Re: Synergized with George. Uh, they were a 1st round team before George arrived, and a first round team with George. That was a disappointment at the time, and that disappointment had everything to do with why OKC was eager to blow it up despite their two superstars only being 30 & 28 respectively. They brought in George to contend, and after 2 years, it was clear that a Westbrook-George star duo couldn't be contenders, despite the fact that George was at the peak of his demand from other teams.

Both of these players two respective peaks, which season is better, and why? I'll be hoping for long, in-depth discussion!

I'd go with Draymond because I think he works better on a contending team.

Prooobably true, but the difference is overstated, and depends in great part on roster construction.

Many 40 or 50 win squads are flawed teams that would really like a Draymond to supercharge everything. I feel the 2016 Celtics are a good example. The Blazers too, the Rockets. But there are also many 40 to 50 win squads that are already solid teams, with high IQ players, defenders, shooters, good secondary passers... that are overmatched and desperately lacking a superstar that slots everybody into a better role. 2016 Atlanta, god, he fits like a glove there. Miami, Detroit, Memphis...

Then again, in reality those teams would need to trade a lot of talent in return, you can't just add a guy. I mean, the Warriors managed to cram 2 and then 3 superstars (2016/2017 Dray absolutely is one) + 2 stars on the same payroll, but that was a miracle and a huge exception. You'd have to consider the player in question being on the team in the first place... domino effect... alternate realities, yadda yadda yadda, I'm rambling right now. The point is, floor raising is still pretty important even when considering contenders, because happening to play on a 50+ win team (without the star) is extremely rare. Usually the talent level won't be that high.

(Of course Westbrook would surely be better at elevating bad teams, but that's pretty much completely irrelevant anyway. Counterproductive if anything, lol. And Draymond probably gets, erm, "injured" or punches a guy in frustration or something)

Re: depends on roster construction. I believe that high BBIQ is critical for stars who can't shoot if you want to build a champion, so while "depends" is never wrong, Westbrook's decision making primacy mixed with his decision making limitations is just a brutal combo.

Re: floor raising is still important when considering contenders. I suppose it depends on precisely what you mean when you say "floor raising", but these terms exist (the other being ceiling raising) to distinguish between players who excel bringing a team up to respectability and players who excel in finding value on top tier teams. A player can be said to be both, but a pure floor raiser is meant to describe a player who is best suited to high primacy on teams with poor supporting casts.

I wouldn't describe anyone as a true 'pure floor raiser', or a true 'pure ceiling raiser' for that matter, but yeah, I think NBA Westbrook really fell in love playing a style that was problematic given his limitations, and while it doesn't mean he couldn't have won a title, no, I don't think it's a coincidence that Westbrook was so frustrating to watch in his 2-man show years in OKC and that he couldn't actually stick on one franchise for long in the time since.

[lessthanjake]

Did Westbrook synergize with the other stars on that contending team? No.
Did that failure to synergize make it harder for them to win the title? Yes.

In what way? If you're speaking about the Houston or Lakers debacles then sure, fair game.

But Oklahoma was a resounding success in terms of quality of play, and the team peaked higher (in terms of full strength lineup net rating) the more primacy Westbrook had. If anything, I'd argue both superstars complemented each other perfectly: a mediocre finisher / top tier creator and a mediocre creator / top tier finisher. Is Durant's archtype more portable, easier to fit with? Yes, of course. That's a big part of why he's better.

He also fit alright with Paul George, even if he was pretty cooked as an impact player at that point (arguably already on 2018, probably on 2019, and certainly by 2020). I'm pretty sure we don't have a Harden/Paul situation on our hands here, and even then... that still worked pretty well

Huh. How could it possibly peak when Westbrook had most primacy when that happened after Durant decided to go away?

But to try to cut to the quick of the matter: To me those Thunder teams were frustrating to watch because Westbrook just didn't have the BBIQ to do the job properly. The phenomenon of Westbrook not seeming to try to get Durant the ball on some critical possessions - to Durant's visible frustration - was part and parcel with watching them play.

If you don't agree on that, then I don't think we can get anywhere. Just two different experiences watching.

Re: Synergized with George. Uh, they were a 1st round team before George arrived, and a first round team with George. That was a disappointment at the time, and that disappointment had everything to do with why OKC was eager to blow it up despite their two superstars only being 30 & 28 respectively. They brought in George to contend, and after 2 years, it was clear that a Westbrook-George star duo couldn't be contenders, despite the fact that George was at the peak of his demand from other teams.

I'd go with Draymond because I think he works better on a contending team.

Prooobably true, but the difference is overstated, and depends in great part on roster construction.

Many 40 or 50 win squads are flawed teams that would really like a Draymond to supercharge everything. I feel the 2016 Celtics are a good example. The Blazers too, the Rockets. But there are also many 40 to 50 win squads that are already solid teams, with high IQ players, defenders, shooters, good secondary passers... that are overmatched and desperately lacking a superstar that slots everybody into a better role. 2016 Atlanta, god, he fits like a glove there. Miami, Detroit, Memphis...

Then again, in reality those teams would need to trade a lot of talent in return, you can't just add a guy. I mean, the Warriors managed to cram 2 and then 3 superstars (2016/2017 Dray absolutely is one) + 2 stars on the same payroll, but that was a miracle and a huge exception. You'd have to consider the player in question being on the team in the first place... domino effect... alternate realities, yadda yadda yadda, I'm rambling right now. The point is, floor raising is still pretty important even when considering contenders, because happening to play on a 50+ win team (without the star) is extremely rare. Usually the talent level won't be that high.

(Of course Westbrook would surely be better at elevating bad teams, but that's pretty much completely irrelevant anyway. Counterproductive if anything, lol. And Draymond probably gets, erm, "injured" or punches a guy in frustration or something)

Re: depends on roster construction. I believe that high BBIQ is critical for stars who can't shoot if you want to build a champion, so while "depends" is never wrong, Westbrook's decision making primacy mixed with his decision making limitations is just a brutal combo.

Re: floor raising is still important when considering contenders. I suppose it depends on precisely what you mean when you say "floor raising", but these terms exist (the other being ceiling raising) to distinguish between players who excel bringing a team up to respectability and players who excel in finding value on top tier teams. A player can be said to be both, but a pure floor raiser is meant to describe a player who is best suited to high primacy on teams with poor supporting casts.

I wouldn't describe anyone as a true 'pure floor raiser', or a true 'pure ceiling raiser' for that matter, but yeah, I think NBA Westbrook really fell in love playing a style that was problematic given his limitations, and while it doesn't mean he couldn't have won a title, no, I don't think it's a coincidence that Westbrook was so frustrating to watch in his 2-man show years in OKC and that he couldn't actually stick on one franchise for long in the time since.

Regarding Westbrook meshing with Durant, I just took a look at the numbers for the various combinations of Westbrook and Durant on and off the court from 2011-2016 (which I think are the years that they were *both* stars). Over the course of those 5 seasons, the Thunder were only +8.24 with both Durant and Westbrook on the floor. They were actually +9.13 with Durant on and Westbrook off, while being +3.79 with Durant off and Westbrook on. If we limit it to just games they both played in (to avoid putting too much weight in the off-minute scenarios on the specific teams they had in the years those guys missed tons of games), the numbers are +8.24 with them both on, +9.96 with Durant on and Westbrook off, and +6.45 with Durant off and Westbrook on. If we add playoffs to the mix for the latter inquiry (i.e. RS+playoffs in games they both played), we get +7.70 with them both on, +7.73 with Durant on and Westbrook off, and +5.39 with Durant off and Westbrook on.

I look at this and think it backs up what you’re saying about Westbrook not being a good decision-maker in the context of being on the court with Durant. After all, the Thunder actually did worse with them both on the court than they did with Durant on and Westbrook off. Granted, I imagine more of the Durant-ON/Westbrook-OFF minutes were against bench players on the opposing team, but it still seems like adding Westbrook to the mix with Durant was not actually particularly helpful. It seems like what made those Thunder so good was a combination of (1) the fact that the team did well with one guy on and the other off, and (2) the fact that the team didn’t collapse with both guys off (the net rating was barely negative with them both off).

Honestly, I looked up the numbers expecting to find something very different and to push back a little on your point based on that (I expected this mostly based on how I’ve seen people talk about Westbrook’s Thunder impact numbers, rather than any eye-test stuff), but what I found really does support what you’re saying IMO.

[Top10alltime]

Yeah 359 minutes in playoffs is a useful data sample for the purpose of evaluating someone withour their co star

Cannot help but wonder if such a sample size would be so nitpicked with different players involved

Pretty much.

Not quite sure why you guys find it so difficult to not make weird personal digs and insinuations of bad faith. I know you’re white hot with fury that your toxic compadres got banned (which I assume is why these sorts of comments have increased recently), but they did that to themselves so I don’t know why you’re directing your frustration towards me. Please try to find a way to get past it and actually engage in a way that isn’t so abrasive.

"Personal digs"

Well I guess at least you’re writing some of your own content now…

Before you even comment (persecuting someone for something as small as a online peaks project), and taking it out on them, think about what you have done yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.

[Jaivl]

In what way? If you're speaking about the Houston or Lakers debacles then sure, fair game.

But Oklahoma was a resounding success in terms of quality of play, and the team peaked higher (in terms of full strength lineup net rating) the more primacy Westbrook had. If anything, I'd argue both superstars complemented each other perfectly: a mediocre finisher / top tier creator and a mediocre creator / top tier finisher. Is Durant's archtype more portable, easier to fit with? Yes, of course. That's a big part of why he's better.

He also fit alright with Paul George, even if he was pretty cooked as an impact player at that point (arguably already on 2018, probably on 2019, and certainly by 2020). I'm pretty sure we don't have a Harden/Paul situation on our hands here, and even then... that still worked pretty well

Huh. How could it possibly peak when Westbrook had most primacy when that happened after Durant decided to go away?

But to try to cut to the quick of the matter: To me those Thunder teams were frustrating to watch because Westbrook just didn't have the BBIQ to do the job properly. The phenomenon of Westbrook not seeming to try to get Durant the ball on some critical possessions - to Durant's visible frustration - was part and parcel with watching them play.

If you don't agree on that, then I don't think we can get anywhere. Just two different experiences watching.

Re: Synergized with George. Uh, they were a 1st round team before George arrived, and a first round team with George. That was a disappointment at the time, and that disappointment had everything to do with why OKC was eager to blow it up despite their two superstars only being 30 & 28 respectively. They brought in George to contend, and after 2 years, it was clear that a Westbrook-George star duo couldn't be contenders, despite the fact that George was at the peak of his demand from other teams.

Prooobably true, but the difference is overstated, and depends in great part on roster construction.

Many 40 or 50 win squads are flawed teams that would really like a Draymond to supercharge everything. I feel the 2016 Celtics are a good example. The Blazers too, the Rockets. But there are also many 40 to 50 win squads that are already solid teams, with high IQ players, defenders, shooters, good secondary passers... that are overmatched and desperately lacking a superstar that slots everybody into a better role. 2016 Atlanta, god, he fits like a glove there. Miami, Detroit, Memphis...

Then again, in reality those teams would need to trade a lot of talent in return, you can't just add a guy. I mean, the Warriors managed to cram 2 and then 3 superstars (2016/2017 Dray absolutely is one) + 2 stars on the same payroll, but that was a miracle and a huge exception. You'd have to consider the player in question being on the team in the first place... domino effect... alternate realities, yadda yadda yadda, I'm rambling right now. The point is, floor raising is still pretty important even when considering contenders, because happening to play on a 50+ win team (without the star) is extremely rare. Usually the talent level won't be that high.

(Of course Westbrook would surely be better at elevating bad teams, but that's pretty much completely irrelevant anyway. Counterproductive if anything, lol. And Draymond probably gets, erm, "injured" or punches a guy in frustration or something)

Re: depends on roster construction. I believe that high BBIQ is critical for stars who can't shoot if you want to build a champion, so while "depends" is never wrong, Westbrook's decision making primacy mixed with his decision making limitations is just a brutal combo.

Re: floor raising is still important when considering contenders. I suppose it depends on precisely what you mean when you say "floor raising", but these terms exist (the other being ceiling raising) to distinguish between players who excel bringing a team up to respectability and players who excel in finding value on top tier teams. A player can be said to be both, but a pure floor raiser is meant to describe a player who is best suited to high primacy on teams with poor supporting casts.

I wouldn't describe anyone as a true 'pure floor raiser', or a true 'pure ceiling raiser' for that matter, but yeah, I think NBA Westbrook really fell in love playing a style that was problematic given his limitations, and while it doesn't mean he couldn't have won a title, no, I don't think it's a coincidence that Westbrook was so frustrating to watch in his 2-man show years in OKC and that he couldn't actually stick on one franchise for long in the time since.

Regarding Westbrook meshing with Durant, I just took a look at the numbers for the various combinations of Westbrook and Durant on and off the court from 2011-2016 (which I think are the years that they were *both* stars). Over the course of those 5 seasons, the Thunder were only +8.24 with both Durant and Westbrook on the floor. They were actually +9.13 with Durant on and Westbrook off, while being +3.79 with Durant off and Westbrook on. If we limit it to just games they both played in (to avoid putting too much weight in the off-minute scenarios on the specific teams they had in the years those guys missed tons of games), the numbers are +8.24 with them both on, +9.96 with Durant on and Westbrook off, and +6.45 with Durant off and Westbrook on. If we add playoffs to the mix for the latter inquiry (i.e. RS+playoffs in games they both played), we get +7.70 with them both on, +7.73 with Durant on and Westbrook off, and +5.39 with Durant off and Westbrook on.

I look at this and think it backs up what you’re saying about Westbrook not being a good decision-maker in the context of being on the court with Durant. After all, the Thunder actually did worse with them both on the court than they did with Durant on and Westbrook off. Granted, I imagine more of the Durant-ON/Westbrook-OFF minutes were against bench players on the opposing team, but it still seems like adding Westbrook to the mix with Durant was not actually particularly helpful. It seems like what made those Thunder so good was a combination of (1) the fact that the team did well with one guy on and the other off, and (2) the fact that the team didn’t collapse with both guys off (the net rating was barely negative with them both off).

Honestly, I looked up the numbers expecting to find something very different and to push back a little on your point based on that (I expected this mostly based on how I’ve seen people talk about Westbrook’s Thunder impact numbers, rather than any eye-test stuff), but what I found really does support what you’re saying IMO.

2011, with Westbrook at his lowest primacy, him and Harden playing very staggered and the team not being an actual contender, is an extreme outlier that completely distorts the numbers.

2016:
+12.3 both on
+5.5 KD on, WB off
+5.6 WB on, KD off
-9.2 both off

2015:
+10.1 both on
+0.5 KD on, WB off
+2.4 WB on, KD off
-2.3 both off

2014 (WB's injury):
+5.6 both on
+7.4 KD on, WB off
+10.0 WB on, KD off (extremely small sample)
-1.7 both off

2013:
+11.5 both on
+6.3 KD on, WB off
+9.7 WB on, KD off
+0.3 both off

2012:
+6.5 both on
+4.0 KD on, WB off
+21.6 WB on, KD off (extremely small sample)
+0.6 both off

2011:
+2.3 both on
+11.5 KD on, WB off
-11.5 WB on, KD off
+7.0 both off

[lessthanjake]

Pretty much.

Not quite sure why you guys find it so difficult to not make weird personal digs and insinuations of bad faith. I know you’re white hot with fury that your toxic compadres got banned (which I assume is why these sorts of comments have increased recently), but they did that to themselves so I don’t know why you’re directing your frustration towards me. Please try to find a way to get past it and actually engage in a way that isn’t so abrasive.

"Personal digs"

Well I guess at least you’re writing some of your own content now…

Before you even comment (persecuting someone for something as small as a online peaks project), and taking it out on them, think about what you have done yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.

Yep, I suppose it may be fair to characterize that post of mine as a personal dig towards you. But it was also just meant to be funny rather than mean-spirited/passive-aggressive, and was in response to a post of yours that was very clearly also meant to be humorous. So I was intending it to all be in good fun, as part of a light-hearted conversation. Which is quite obviously *not* how the posts I’m referring to from others are intended—there’s nothing humorous going on in their comments or the exchanges they’re part of. It just reads as passive-aggressive resentment. And, even so, the post of mine you refer to above resulted in a mod responding telling me not to make posts like that. If even more light-hearted “personal digs” should be stopped, then these sorts of comments definitely should.

[lessthanjake]

Huh. How could it possibly peak when Westbrook had most primacy when that happened after Durant decided to go away?

But to try to cut to the quick of the matter: To me those Thunder teams were frustrating to watch because Westbrook just didn't have the BBIQ to do the job properly. The phenomenon of Westbrook not seeming to try to get Durant the ball on some critical possessions - to Durant's visible frustration - was part and parcel with watching them play.

If you don't agree on that, then I don't think we can get anywhere. Just two different experiences watching.

Re: Synergized with George. Uh, they were a 1st round team before George arrived, and a first round team with George. That was a disappointment at the time, and that disappointment had everything to do with why OKC was eager to blow it up despite their two superstars only being 30 & 28 respectively. They brought in George to contend, and after 2 years, it was clear that a Westbrook-George star duo couldn't be contenders, despite the fact that George was at the peak of his demand from other teams.



Re: depends on roster construction. I believe that high BBIQ is critical for stars who can't shoot if you want to build a champion, so while "depends" is never wrong, Westbrook's decision making primacy mixed with his decision making limitations is just a brutal combo.

Re: floor raising is still important when considering contenders. I suppose it depends on precisely what you mean when you say "floor raising", but these terms exist (the other being ceiling raising) to distinguish between players who excel bringing a team up to respectability and players who excel in finding value on top tier teams. A player can be said to be both, but a pure floor raiser is meant to describe a player who is best suited to high primacy on teams with poor supporting casts.

I wouldn't describe anyone as a true 'pure floor raiser', or a true 'pure ceiling raiser' for that matter, but yeah, I think NBA Westbrook really fell in love playing a style that was problematic given his limitations, and while it doesn't mean he couldn't have won a title, no, I don't think it's a coincidence that Westbrook was so frustrating to watch in his 2-man show years in OKC and that he couldn't actually stick on one franchise for long in the time since.

Regarding Westbrook meshing with Durant, I just took a look at the numbers for the various combinations of Westbrook and Durant on and off the court from 2011-2016 (which I think are the years that they were *both* stars). Over the course of those 5 seasons, the Thunder were only +8.24 with both Durant and Westbrook on the floor. They were actually +9.13 with Durant on and Westbrook off, while being +3.79 with Durant off and Westbrook on. If we limit it to just games they both played in (to avoid putting too much weight in the off-minute scenarios on the specific teams they had in the years those guys missed tons of games), the numbers are +8.24 with them both on, +9.96 with Durant on and Westbrook off, and +6.45 with Durant off and Westbrook on. If we add playoffs to the mix for the latter inquiry (i.e. RS+playoffs in games they both played), we get +7.70 with them both on, +7.73 with Durant on and Westbrook off, and +5.39 with Durant off and Westbrook on.

I look at this and think it backs up what you’re saying about Westbrook not being a good decision-maker in the context of being on the court with Durant. After all, the Thunder actually did worse with them both on the court than they did with Durant on and Westbrook off. Granted, I imagine more of the Durant-ON/Westbrook-OFF minutes were against bench players on the opposing team, but it still seems like adding Westbrook to the mix with Durant was not actually particularly helpful. It seems like what made those Thunder so good was a combination of (1) the fact that the team did well with one guy on and the other off, and (2) the fact that the team didn’t collapse with both guys off (the net rating was barely negative with them both off).

Honestly, I looked up the numbers expecting to find something very different and to push back a little on your point based on that (I expected this mostly based on how I’ve seen people talk about Westbrook’s Thunder impact numbers, rather than any eye-test stuff), but what I found really does support what you’re saying IMO.

2011, with Westbrook at his lowest primacy, him and Harden playing very staggered and the team not being an actual contender, is an extreme outlier that completely distorts the numbers.

2016:
+12.3 both on
+5.5 KD on, WB off
+5.6 WB on, KD off
-9.2 both off

2015:
+10.1 both on
+0.5 KD on, WB off
+2.4 WB on, KD off
-2.3 both off

2014 (WB's injury):
+5.6 both on
+7.4 KD on, WB off
+10.0 WB on, KD off (extremely small sample)
-1.7 both off

2013:
+11.5 both on
+6.3 KD on, WB off
+9.7 WB on, KD off
+0.3 both off

2012:
+6.5 both on
+4.0 KD on, WB off
+21.6 WB on, KD off (extremely small sample)
+0.6 both off

2011:
+2.3 both on
+11.5 KD on, WB off
-11.5 WB on, KD off
+7.0 both off

This is true, but it doesn’t move the data all that much. For instance, if we looked at 2012-2016 in the regular season in games they both played in, the Thunder were +9.82 with both on the court, +9.21 with only Durant, and +7.90 with only Westbrook. If we add playoffs to the mix, it’s +9.08 with both, +6.88 with only Durant, and +7.47 with only Westbrook.

So the data does look a bit better and doesn’t have them both being on the court as worse than only Durant. But it still doesn’t evidence much of a boost from them both being on the court as opposed to just one of them. It still does look to me like the team was good more because the team still did well with only one of them on the court and were at least okay with neither on the court, rather than that the two of them together led to any particularly great heights.

[Top10alltime]

Not quite sure why you guys find it so difficult to not make weird personal digs and insinuations of bad faith. I know you’re white hot with fury that your toxic compadres got banned (which I assume is why these sorts of comments have increased recently), but they did that to themselves so I don’t know why you’re directing your frustration towards me. Please try to find a way to get past it and actually engage in a way that isn’t so abrasive.

"Personal digs"

Well I guess at least you’re writing some of your own content now…

Before you even comment (persecuting someone for something as small as a online peaks project), and taking it out on them, think about what you have done yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.

Yep, I suppose it may be fair to characterize that post of mine as a personal dig towards you. But it was also just meant to be funny rather than mean-spirited/passive-aggressive, and was in response to a post of yours that was very clearly also meant to be humorous. So I was intending it to all be in good fun, as part of a light-hearted conversation. Which is quite obviously *not* how the posts I’m referring to from others are intended—there’s nothing humorous going on in their comments or the exchanges they’re part of. It just reads as passive-aggressive resentment. And, even so, the post of mine you refer to above resulted in a mod responding telling me not to make posts like that. If even more light-hearted “personal digs” should be stopped, then these sorts of comments definitely should.

Yeah, that's fine, I usually don't take things personally (just defending them here). But above, you said they were directing it to you, and they clearly weren't (they actually thought that the minutes without a co-star was good enough minutes, don't understand why you would be able to take it that way). It was really just conversations.

Just pointing out my actual beliefs, and that if you were pointing out that happened, therefore it would be hypocrisy (well, they weren't doing anything wrong). You should be stopping that, and me personally I don't think you should've gotten a warning, but I was timed for sharing my true beliefs about Giannis! So, I guess it's fair. Still, the board is too strict imo, but I have no control over it!

Anyways, you shouldn't be talking to them like that, they didn't direct it towards you and genuinely thought that it was reliable enough. Please explain how it shows passive-aggressive resentment, please do.

Anyways LTJ, hope IRL, you are blessed by God abundantly. Goodbye for now!

[lessthanjake]

"Personal digs"



Before you even comment (persecuting someone for something as small as a online peaks project), and taking it out on them, think about what you have done yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.

Yep, I suppose it may be fair to characterize that post of mine as a personal dig towards you. But it was also just meant to be funny rather than mean-spirited/passive-aggressive, and was in response to a post of yours that was very clearly also meant to be humorous. So I was intending it to all be in good fun, as part of a light-hearted conversation. Which is quite obviously *not* how the posts I’m referring to from others are intended—there’s nothing humorous going on in their comments or the exchanges they’re part of. It just reads as passive-aggressive resentment. And, even so, the post of mine you refer to above resulted in a mod responding telling me not to make posts like that. If even more light-hearted “personal digs” should be stopped, then these sorts of comments definitely should.

Yeah, that's fine, I usually don't take things personally (just defending them here). But above, you said they were directing it to you, and they clearly weren't (they actually thought that the minutes without a co-star was good enough minutes, don't understand why you would be able to take it that way). It was really just conversations.

Just pointing out my actual beliefs, and that if you were pointing out that happened, therefore it would be hypocrisy (well, they weren't doing anything wrong). You should be stopping that, and me personally I don't think you should've gotten a warning, but I was timed for sharing my true beliefs about Giannis! So, I guess it's fair. Still, the board is too strict imo, but I have no control over it!

Anyways, you shouldn't be talking to them like that, they didn't direct it towards you and genuinely thought that it was reliable enough. Please explain how it shows passive-aggressive resentment, please do.

Anyways LTJ, hope IRL, you are blessed by God abundantly. Goodbye for now!

I feel like this should be obvious, but the passive aggressive part was: “Cannot help but wonder if such a sample size would be so nitpicked with different players involved.” When you understand the context that the people in question pretty often make subtle (or not-so-subtle) rude comments very clearly directly at me that similarly suggest I don’t post in good faith, it’s quite obvious that it’s referring to me and insinuating that I am not talking in good faith. And I’ve actually asked for this sort of thing to stop on multiple occasions and not one single time has the response been that I was wrong about the comments referring to me. So yeah, I think I’m pretty justified in finding these comments annoying.

[Doctor MJ]

Regarding Westbrook meshing with Durant, I just took a look at the numbers for the various combinations of Westbrook and Durant on and off the court from 2011-2016 (which I think are the years that they were *both* stars). Over the course of those 5 seasons, the Thunder were only +8.24 with both Durant and Westbrook on the floor. They were actually +9.13 with Durant on and Westbrook off, while being +3.79 with Durant off and Westbrook on. If we limit it to just games they both played in (to avoid putting too much weight in the off-minute scenarios on the specific teams they had in the years those guys missed tons of games), the numbers are +8.24 with them both on, +9.96 with Durant on and Westbrook off, and +6.45 with Durant off and Westbrook on. If we add playoffs to the mix for the latter inquiry (i.e. RS+playoffs in games they both played), we get +7.70 with them both on, +7.73 with Durant on and Westbrook off, and +5.39 with Durant off and Westbrook on.

I look at this and think it backs up what you’re saying about Westbrook not being a good decision-maker in the context of being on the court with Durant. After all, the Thunder actually did worse with them both on the court than they did with Durant on and Westbrook off. Granted, I imagine more of the Durant-ON/Westbrook-OFF minutes were against bench players on the opposing team, but it still seems like adding Westbrook to the mix with Durant was not actually particularly helpful. It seems like what made those Thunder so good was a combination of (1) the fact that the team did well with one guy on and the other off, and (2) the fact that the team didn’t collapse with both guys off (the net rating was barely negative with them both off).

Honestly, I looked up the numbers expecting to find something very different and to push back a little on your point based on that (I expected this mostly based on how I’ve seen people talk about Westbrook’s Thunder impact numbers, rather than any eye-test stuff), but what I found really does support what you’re saying IMO.

2011, with Westbrook at his lowest primacy, him and Harden playing very staggered and the team not being an actual contender, is an extreme outlier that completely distorts the numbers.

2016:
+12.3 both on
+5.5 KD on, WB off
+5.6 WB on, KD off
-9.2 both off

2015:
+10.1 both on
+0.5 KD on, WB off
+2.4 WB on, KD off
-2.3 both off

2014 (WB's injury):
+5.6 both on
+7.4 KD on, WB off
+10.0 WB on, KD off (extremely small sample)
-1.7 both off

2013:
+11.5 both on
+6.3 KD on, WB off
+9.7 WB on, KD off
+0.3 both off

2012:
+6.5 both on
+4.0 KD on, WB off
+21.6 WB on, KD off (extremely small sample)
+0.6 both off

2011:
+2.3 both on
+11.5 KD on, WB off
-11.5 WB on, KD off
+7.0 both off

This is true, but it doesn’t move the data all that much. For instance, if we looked at 2012-2016 in the regular season in games they both played in, the Thunder were +9.82 with both on the court, +9.21 with only Durant, and +7.90 with only Westbrook. If we add playoffs to the mix, it’s +9.08 with both, +6.88 with only Durant, and +7.47 with only Westbrook.

So the data does look a bit better and doesn’t have them both being on the court as worse than only Durant. But it still doesn’t evidence much of a boost from them both being on the court as opposed to just one of them. It still does look to me like the team was good more because the team still did well with only one of them on the court and were at least okay with neither on the court, rather than that the two of them together led to any particularly great heights.

Hey guys, so I want to say first and foremost that I think your back & forth is great, and both make excellent points that get into the quantitative after my post was entirely qualitative.

Let me take this in a particularly granular direction:

I believe that a hallmark of offensive synergy is improvement of teammate shot quality. Most typically we think about this with great playmakers, but it really doesn't have to be. Let me give some examples:

In Phoenix during the Nash years, here's how his top teammates' shot quality looked according to PBP:

Amar'e: w: 50.0, wout: 47.0, diff: 3.0
Marion: w: 53.8, wout: 50.4, diff: 3.4
Johnson: w: 50.3, wout: 45.8, diff: 4.5

For the Lakers as far back as PBP goes ('00-01) until Shaq left the team:

Kobe: w: 47.4, wout: 44.7, diff: 2.7
Payton: w: 52.1, wout: 48.3, diff: 3.8
Malone: w: 47.0, wout: 46.5, diff 0.5

Now with Malone (as with Payton & Johnson) the small sample adds noise of course, but if things held with greater sample what I'd say is that it seemed that Shaq & Malone didn't synergize all that well, and frankly that'd make sense given that they're both interior players.

So now if I look at KD and compare the apparent shot quality difference in OKC with Westbrook (and I've split it up several ways to make sure there are no major differences) compared to with Curry in GS, I get:

w Westbrook (08-09 to '15-16): 50.2, wout: 49.1 diff: 1.1
w Westbrook (12-13 to '15-16): 50.8, wout: 50.1 diff: 0.7
w Westbrook (14-15 to 15-16): 51.5, wout: 50.6 diff: 0.9
w Curry (16-17 to 18-19): 51.5, wout: 47.8 diff: 3.7

So just generally, I'm not seeing Durant getting much better shots with Westbrook compared to without like I'd expect from synergization, whereas the synergizing seems to be happening pretty clearly in GS.

Now to be clear, my qualitative complaints weren't about KD not getting easy shots with Westbrook, but about him getting the ball when he should, however I do think these things are connected. Westbrook's gravity should have made easier shots for KD in theory, but that only actually happens when gravity is followed adroit passing. On-ball gravity without great passing awareness just leads to a guy chucking shots while his teammates get bored and frustrated.

And yet, none of that meant OKC with Westbrook & KD wasn't awesome, it's just that synergization effects would have made them even more effective.

[falcolombardi]

The exact situation the 359 minutes was in doesn’t change how noisy 359 minutes are. It’s the size of the sample that makes that the case.

And since it’s a very specific scenario you’re referring to (superstar player on great team gets injured for a relatively short period of time in playoffs + team has another genuinely really good player to look at this data for + the rest of the supporting cast is actually good/deep), and we don’t have this type of data for most of NBA history, I don’t think there’s really enough genuinely similar examples to actually act like we can look at what’s happened and decide from that whether a decidedly small sample of minutes is somehow not actually very noisy in this particular type of context. What we *can* do is just look at the size of the sample and come to the obvious conclusion that it’s a small sample that is bound to be noisy.

That said, I will say that the first analogy that came to my mind was Kawhi going down in 2021. And I just looked it up and the Clippers had a +5.44 net rating in Paul George’s 333 minutes in the games Kawhi didn’t play in those playoffs. Since the opponents in those games were actually really good, that’s like a +12.2 relative net rating in those minutes in games without Kawhi (calculated using a possession-weighted average of the opponents’ net ratings). And it’s even better if we look at all the non-Kawhi minutes. For all Paul George’s minutes without Kawhi in those entire playoffs (i.e. also including non-Kawhi minutes in games Kawhi played in), the Clippers had a +15.24 relative net rating in 414 minutes. That looks real similar to the data you provided for 2016 Draymond, and I really wouldn’t say 2021 Paul George was anywhere near a GOAT-level player (and FWIW nor would I say he was as good as 2016 Draymond). Definitely seems like an example of this type of data in this type of sample size being super noisy!

Nobody is saying the bolded for Draymond either, but this was a thread about Westbrook and Draymond. As for PG13, his peak is also highly underrated--there's a reason he's a career 99th percentile impact player in the databall age.

You started your first post in this exchange with the following statement: “2016 Draymond just has too many signals telling us he was at a level only clear GOAT candidates clearly supercede.” Saying that someone can have the types of numbers you provided for Draymond while not being anywhere near a GOAT-level player is pretty clearly responsive to that statement. Perhaps I should’ve worded it as saying Paul George is not even near the tier just below GOAT-level, but I think the point I was making was obvious.

In any event, you are sidestepping the fact that literally the first analogous example I could think of actually yielded similar results. The sample is just small such that there’s a ton of noise. 2016 Draymond and 2021 Paul George were very good players, but neither of those guys were going to have +15 or +16 net ratings without those star guys in an actually large sample. The fact that they did in a very small sample is because the sample is small and noisy.

Yeah 359 minutes in playoffs is a useful data sample for the purpose of evaluating someone withour their co star

Cannot help but wonder if such a sample size would be so nitpicked with different players involved

Pretty much.

Not quite sure why you guys find it so difficult to not make weird personal digs and insinuations of bad faith. I know you’re white hot with fury that your toxic compadres got banned (which I assume is why these sorts of comments have increased recently), but they did that to themselves so I don’t know why you’re directing your frustration towards me. Please try to find a way to get past it and actually engage in a way that isn’t so abrasive.

Man i was talking about draymond being underated because of aesthetics/charisma, why did you even feel attacked and brought up such a weird comment?

[TheGOATRises007]

I truthfully don't trust Westbrook on championship contending teams.

Even though I think KD laid the egg way more in those final 3 games in 2016 than Westbrook did, I just find so many holes in Westbrook's game.

He is extremely lazy on defense(one of his biggest black marks for me) and takes constant plays off.

If I had a lesser team and I need to make a playoff push, I absolutely pick Westbrook over Draymond.

If I had a championship caliber team and I anticipate playing in the finals, I absolutely Draymond over Westbrook.

[lessthanjake]

Nobody is saying the bolded for Draymond either, but this was a thread about Westbrook and Draymond. As for PG13, his peak is also highly underrated--there's a reason he's a career 99th percentile impact player in the databall age.

You started your first post in this exchange with the following statement: “2016 Draymond just has too many signals telling us he was at a level only clear GOAT candidates clearly supercede.” Saying that someone can have the types of numbers you provided for Draymond while not being anywhere near a GOAT-level player is pretty clearly responsive to that statement. Perhaps I should’ve worded it as saying Paul George is not even near the tier just below GOAT-level, but I think the point I was making was obvious.

In any event, you are sidestepping the fact that literally the first analogous example I could think of actually yielded similar results. The sample is just small such that there’s a ton of noise. 2016 Draymond and 2021 Paul George were very good players, but neither of those guys were going to have +15 or +16 net ratings without those star guys in an actually large sample. The fact that they did in a very small sample is because the sample is small and noisy.

Pretty much.

Not quite sure why you guys find it so difficult to not make weird personal digs and insinuations of bad faith. I know you’re white hot with fury that your toxic compadres got banned (which I assume is why these sorts of comments have increased recently), but they did that to themselves so I don’t know why you’re directing your frustration towards me. Please try to find a way to get past it and actually engage in a way that isn’t so abrasive.

Man i was talking about draymond being underated because of aesthetics/charisma, why did you even feel attacked and brought up such a weird comment?

Yeah, okay. If I *actually* misinterpreted your specific post, then my apologies to you. But HCL repeatedly making insinuations of bad faith directed at me is absolutely not a matter of misinterpretation, so my comment on that front absolutely stands (though my comment was not made in response to a post of his this time). And I’ll note that I’d be a whole lot less likely to potentially misinterpret something like that if HCL and others (including two recently banned posters) hadn’t so frequently made subtle insinuations that were definitely directed at me. Nor would I be very likely to assume a comment from you falls in the same boat if I didn’t know for a fact you are actively associated with them in a Discord that apparently literally has hundreds and hundreds of messages of people attacking me amongst each other (to my utterly bemused surprise when I was made aware of this—it’s really a bit pathetic). But yeah, if I genuinely did jump to an incorrect assumption about your post, sorry about that. I’ll try to give you more of a benefit of the doubt in the future and/or just ask for clarification as to what you mean. It seems that it perhaps would’ve been better if I’d done that this time.

Anyways, I don’t want to continue needlessly dragging this thread into the mud. If what you legitimately meant was that people don’t believe good data regarding Draymond because he’s not your typical archetype for a star player and he has done some crazy things, then I’ll say I suppose that’s something worth keeping in mind with him, to make sure we’re giving him the same credit we’d give someone else. From my perspective, I would say that I think the archetype thing did cause me to underrate Draymond in the past. But seeing a boatload of great data on him made me materially change my mind about him, rather than the fact that he’s an unconventional star player making me not believe that data. My concern with the data HCL presented really isn’t about refusing to be moved by great data on Draymond. I definitely am willing to be moved by great data on him and have in the past. My concern is really just that the sample is very small, and I think I’m very consistent in these forums at qualifying any data in similar samples as being subject to a lot of noise, regardless of what player it’s about.