MIN - NOH - OKC - Blockbuster Poll

[Narf]

It's 6 games, you should probably put more stock in the couple hundred games Westbrook played before that.

OK, let's put stock in those games
TS%:
2008/09- .489
2009/10- .491
2010/11- .538
Now look a little closer
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lits/2011/
In February and March Westbrook shot 50% and 47.6% from 3, raising his overall percentage with a statistical anomaly that he's never done before.

That's 2 months as an outlier. And even with those 2 months pumping up his stats Westbrook is a career sub .500 TS% and a terrible 3 point shooter with a career usage rate of 27.8% on a team of great scorers who create their own shot and bail him out. Westbrook is good, but anyone who thinks he's a top 10 or even top 20 player IMO is fooling themselves. He's a top 40 player who benefits from who he plays with.

In other words, if it wasn't for Durant making him look good (much like KG did to average players over his career) he would be closer to Brandon Jennings than Rose in most people's mind (I think we all agree he's somewhere between those 2 players, it's just a matter of where). Westbrook doesn't make his teammates better, his teammates make him better.

$0.02

[Narf]

To answer the original question, I wouldn't do either of these trades.
The Wolves need a superstar, period. That's our goal, that's our best shot at a championship.
Of all the players in the trade (outside of CP3, who's not going to the Wolves) the 3 that have the best chance of becoming a superstar are Love, Williams, and Rubio. I would much rather keep CP3 and Love than take Westbrook, and in the least I would want more back from OKC in return.

[PG24]

It's 6 games, you should probably put more stock in the couple hundred games Westbrook played before that.

OK, let's put stock in those games
TS%:
2008/09- .489
2009/10- .491
2010/11- .538
Now look a little closer
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lits/2011/
In February and March Westbrook shot 50% and 47.6% from 3, raising his overall percentage with a statistical anomaly that he's never done before.

That's 2 months as an outlier. And even with those 2 months pumping up his stats Westbrook is a career sub .500 TS% and a terrible 3 point shooter with a career usage rate of 27.8% on a team of great scorers who create their own shot and bail him out. Westbrook is good, but anyone who thinks he's a top 10 or even top 20 player IMO is fooling themselves. He's a top 40 player who benefits from who he plays with.

In other words, if it wasn't for Durant making him look good (much like KG did to average players over his career) he would be closer to Brandon Jennings than Rose in most people's mind (I think we all agree he's somewhere between those 2 players, it's just a matter of where). Westbrook doesn't make his teammates better, his teammates make him better.

$0.02

So Westbrook doesn't make his teammates better because he has a low TS%?

The value Westbrook brings as a physical specimen is what sets him apart from a lot of PGs. With that he brings more value to the court than Jennings could ever dream of, and as total impact players they're simply in completely different tiers.

I'd say it could be argued that Westbrook made his teammates better than did Durant. KD is the far superior player and scorer, but yet he still isn't on Westbrook's level as a playmaker. It could be argued either way but I think a lot would side with the playmaker on this one. He needs to tighten up his turnover issues of course, but to say he doesn't make his teammates better is wrong.

Let's not diminish someone's overall contributions just because of a metric that doesn't quite measure up to par (even though it's improved each season he's been in the league). What's the excuse going to be for Rubio's low TS%? Or Jason Kidd's career for that matter? Westbrook is a terrific young talent with immense opportunity to continue to grow as a player, but even with that said I personally like the Rubio/Love + Williams option better than just Westbrook/Love. DW is quickly going to become an exceptional pro.

[shangrila]

Westbrook is a good player, but I watched that playoff series and I saw how selfish he was during it. That's why I don't like him.

[cpfsf]

Can these trades even work? OKC is taking in a ton of salary, even if they do have some cap space remaining.

You are astute. I thought that since people were voting on three seperate trades, I tried to simplify them by only including the major pieces. All three can work

Fair enough. Now I'm going to counter with my own trade. Ibaka's name always pops up, but nobody discusses Okafor. Because of his contract, we can should be able to take him off New Orleans' hands. Hey at least you get to keep Love.

Min in: Ibaka + Westbrook
Min out: Rubio + Williams

OKC in: Paul
OKC out: Westbrook + pick

NOH in: Rubio + Williams
NOH out: Ibaka + Paul

[Foye]

Fair enough. Now I'm going to counter with my own trade. Ibaka's name always pops up, but nobody discusses Okafor. Because of his contract, we can should be able to take him off New Orleans' hands. Hey at least you get to keep Love.

Min in: Okafor + Westbrook
Min out: Rubio + Williams

OKC in: Paul
OKC out: Westbrook + pick

NOH in: Rubio + Williams
NOH out: Okafor + Paul

OKC doesn't give up enough if that's what your thought was.

[AQuintus]

OKC doesn't give up enough if that's what your thought was.

If it's an unextended Paul then I think that you can make an argument that it's fair to all sides (maybe a little to much for Minnesota and a little too little for OKC).

[TrentTuckerForever]

Is TS% a good stat to use to evaluate point guards? It's an honest question - I would assume someone like Nash has a great TS%, but as mentioned earlier in this thread Kidd does not. Almost all the antipathy directed towards Rose's stats were percentage driven (he had great old-school stats, the new/deeper ones not so much).

I'm not suggesting Westbrook is without flaws - there were some moments in the playoffs that made me scratch my head too. But just looking at his talent in the big picture, it's hard for me to say his advanced stats make him a lesser player. Different player, maybe.

[Worm Guts]

It's 6 games, you should probably put more stock in the couple hundred games Westbrook played before that.

OK, let's put stock in those games
TS%:
2008/09- .489
2009/10- .491
2010/11- .538
Now look a little closer
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lits/2011/
In February and March Westbrook shot 50% and 47.6% from 3, raising his overall percentage with a statistical anomaly that he's never done before.

That's 2 months as an outlier. And even with those 2 months pumping up his stats Westbrook is a career sub .500 TS% and a terrible 3 point shooter with a career usage rate of 27.8% on a team of great scorers who create their own shot and bail him out. Westbrook is good, but anyone who thinks he's a top 10 or even top 20 player IMO is fooling themselves. He's a top 40 player who benefits from who he plays with.

In other words, if it wasn't for Durant making him look good (much like KG did to average players over his career) he would be closer to Brandon Jennings than Rose in most people's mind (I think we all agree he's somewhere between those 2 players, it's just a matter of where). Westbrook doesn't make his teammates better, his teammates make him better.

$0.02

He shot .538 over the course of a full season. It seems sort of unnecessary to break it down into months, players have good months and bad months. His TS% last season was way above his previous seasons, so we'll have to wait and see if its real improvement or a fluke.

[shrink]

Fair enough. Now I'm going to counter with my own trade. Ibaka's name always pops up, but nobody discusses Okafor. Because of his contract, we can should be able to take him off New Orleans' hands. Hey at least you get to keep Love.

Min in: Okafor + Westbrook
Min out: Rubio + Williams

OKC in: Paul
OKC out: Westbrook + pick

NOH in: Rubio + Williams
NOH out: Okafor + Paul

GMTA. In the current thread on the Trade Board, I even made an aside that MIN could add value to the trade by taking Okafor off the Hornets books. He's a good player, but without Paul, he may not be worth $41 mil to New Orleans over the next three years.

I'd also mention that in the original trade, the reason I never had Chris Paul coming to MIN, even though MIN gives up the pieces the Hornets front office may accept, if that I didn't think PAUL would accept it, and he'd demand a trade. However, if Okafor was coming here too, I think our new team might be intrigueing to him, and we could remove OKC from the deal:

MIN GETS: Chris Paul + Okafor
NOH GETS: Rubio + Derrick Williams + Webster (almost exp) + Miller (almost exp) + Ellington + Pek + UTA 1st

Chris Paul / Ridnour
Wes Johnson / MLE SG?
Beasley / Hayward
Love / AR
Okafor / Darko / Tolliver

Think that team would keep him in town? Paul would make our guys look so much better.

[Narf]

It's 6 games, you should probably put more stock in the couple hundred games Westbrook played before that.

He shot .538 over the course of a full season. It seems sort of unnecessary to break it down into months, players have good months and bad months.

So that doesn't seem counterintuitive to you then?
I took your logic and expanded it, that's the point. He had 2 great shooting months and outside of that has been a selfish chucker with a sub-.500 TS% his entire career.

If you look at his body and identify the outliers, it's not the 6 playoff games. The outlier is the 2 months he shot almost 50% from 3, which is the only reason he had a respectable TS%. Then he reverted back to his old selfish, terrible shooting self in the playoffs.

I disagree with you that his playoff performance disagrees with the "couple hundred games before that". IMO those playoff games are exactly who he is, and when his shot doesn't fall (as it often doesn't) he's a selfish chucker who dribbles for 18 seconds then dishes it off to a teammate who then bails him out. I can't watch Westbrook play and say reasonably that he makes his teammates better. I would argue that he makes them better in some ways, but also makes them worse. By all means disagree with me, as we all see things differently. But I think my view is pretty reasonable and I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

And because I know someone will try and take this out of context, I was pretty clear that I think Westbrook is a top 40 player just not a top 20 player. That means he's better than most #2 players on most teams. But he also looks like a cancer that will self implode his team like Starbury did, which is one reason I don't want him on my team. But at least Starbury could score efficiently.

[Worm Guts]

So that doesn't seem counterintuitive to you then?
I took your logic and expanded it, that's the point. He had 2 great shooting months and outside of that has been a selfish chucker with a sub-.500 TS% his entire career..

If my point is small sample size, you can't just expand the sample size and think it still applies. Two months is a big chunk of the regular season.

[quote="Narf"]I disagree with you that his playoff performance disagrees with the "couple hundred games before that". IMO those playoff games are exactly who he is, and when his shot doesn't fall (as it often doesn't) he's a selfish chucker who dribbles for 18 seconds then dishes it off to a teammate who then bails him out. I can't watch Westbrook play and say reasonably that he makes his teammates better. I would argue that he makes them better in some ways, but also makes them worse. By all means disagree with me, as we all see things differently. But I think my view is pretty reasonable and well founded in fact./quote]


My orginal point wasn't necessarily about how good Westbrook is, it was more about the tendency to overrate singular playoff performances. If you thought he was a top 20 player before the series, you should probably still think it.

[Narf]

My orginal point wasn't necessarily about how good Westbrook is, it was more about the tendency to overrate singular playoff performances. If you thought he was a top 20 player before the series, you should probably still think it.

That's reasonable, except for those people who went from "Westbrook is a top 50 player" to "Westbrook is a top 10 player" when he was on fire over those 2 months. This board tends to have steadier views. My ranking of Westbrook hasn't really changed much by the playoff performance, although i feel a little vindicated by it.

I guess I'm a little baffled with how enamored people are with Westbrook. We all know who he is. He's going to play good defense, take 17 shots a game, and have some "wow" games along with a lot of "pass the $^!*&@$^ ball already" games.

If Westbrook is between Jennings and Rose, then Rubio is between Jason Kidd and Brevin Knight. I feel that we've got a pretty solid defensive/pass first PG and unless you're getting CP3 you just don't trade #2 + Rubio for them.

[PG24]

It's 6 games, you should probably put more stock in the couple hundred games Westbrook played before that.

He shot .538 over the course of a full season. It seems sort of unnecessary to break it down into months, players have good months and bad months.

So that doesn't seem counterintuitive to you then?
I took your logic and expanded it, that's the point. He had 2 great shooting months and outside of that has been a selfish chucker with a sub-.500 TS% his entire career.

If you look at his body and identify the outliers, it's not the 6 playoff games. The outlier is the 2 months he shot almost 50% from 3, which is the only reason he had a respectable TS%. Then he reverted back to his old selfish, terrible shooting self in the playoffs.

I disagree with you that his playoff performance disagrees with the "couple hundred games before that". IMO those playoff games are exactly who he is, and when his shot doesn't fall (as it often doesn't) he's a selfish chucker who dribbles for 18 seconds then dishes it off to a teammate who then bails him out. I can't watch Westbrook play and say reasonably that he makes his teammates better. I would argue that he makes them better in some ways, but also makes them worse. By all means disagree with me, as we all see things differently. But I think my view is pretty reasonable and I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

And because I know someone will try and take this out of context, I was pretty clear that I think Westbrook is a top 40 player just not a top 20 player. That means he's better than most #2 players on most teams. But he also looks like a cancer that will self implode his team like Starbury did, which is one reason I don't want him on my team. But at least Starbury could score efficiently.

Since when was Marbury ever an efficient scorer? Westbrook just posted a TS% of 53.8 that beats out all but 2 years of Steph's supposed efficiency. Despite all of his 'chucking', RW still posted a FTA/FGA rate of 0.45 that bested just about every guard in the NBA in 2011, and it's a rate that Marbury never achieved in his entire career. So, when his shot isn't falling, he still possesses top notch ability to get to the line and still benefit the team, which is something that shouldn't be undervalued, not to mention his playmaking ability as proven by his 8+ APG. And to continue to call him a sub-.500 TS% player outside of two months is incorrect. In fact, he didn't post a single sub-.500 TS% month all of last season.

Oct/Nov: 56.1%
Dec: 50.3%
Jan: 52.4%
Feb: 55.0%
Mar: 56.1%
Apr: 51.4%

He had a real tough go of it and struggled in the playoffs, and everyone's eyes were able to witness that struggle which is why suddenly some are labeling him as a chucker. RW brings much more ability to the court than just scoring, and, unlike some (like our own Michael Beasley), Westbrook has at least improved each year since he's been in the league as he's taken on more responsibility. He's clearly one of the most talented young players in the league along with already one of it's best players, but you continuing to harp on one single metric is causing you to discredit his total impact on and value to the game (which is odd, because it seems like you throw out that metric when discussing Beasley, who's really only good for one thing and he does it inefficiently).

[Narf]

This board really does love nitpicking statistics just because they can while ignoring big picture statistics that disagree with them.

Westbrook, except for 2 months, has been a sub .500 TS% his entire career. Marbury, the last year of his career in Boston (played only 23 games) posted a sub .500 TS% for the first time. I'd say Marbury was a more efficient scorer, a more skillful ball handler, and all around more talented than Westbrook will ever be. His problem is he's a selfish, emotional, nutjob and couldn't stand being a #2. Westbrook looks like he's going down that same path, although it's too early to say for sure.

As far as his FTAs, maybe you should make a new stat. FTAs per second dribbling the ball. Westbrook absorbs his entire team's offense while everyone stands around and watches him dribble and waits for him to pass the ball. He's clearly got the skills to be an elite PG, but changing his mindset is next to impossible. Players like that never change, they always play selfish basketball.

Which part of that do you disagree with?

[PG24]

Some big picture statistics: Westbrook TS% after 3 seasons: 50.9; Marbury TS% after 3 seasons: 51.3. Not a big difference there, and RW kills Steph in essentially every other category sans assists. Westbrook is simply much better than Marbury at this point in their careers and the thinking that RW is on the path to being a selfish, emotional, nutjob who can't stand being a #2 is wrong until proven otherwise. To this point he's been very successful in his young NBA career and believing that he is going to blow up OKC's future the way Steph did Minnesota's is just buying into a lot of media nonsense.

FTAs per second dribbling the ball, really? So a PG dribbling the ball on offense looking to make a play - in essence what a PG's job description is all about, who also contains the ability to draw fouls at a higher rate than almost every other guard in the league, is a bad thing? Man, I'd love to hear your take on a PG like Rajon Rondo. Not to mention RW has been learning the PG spot and how to play it effectively ever since being drafted, and has only improved each year he's been in the league. And even while that learning curve is still in full effect he still posted a higher PPR than, for example, Derrick Rose last season.

Like I said in the beginning, I wouldn't trade Rubio + Williams for Westbrook. The value is definitely there (two unprovens for a proven), but I'd rather have a more traditional floor general paired with a highly efficient big and a high usage, highly efficient wing (whoever that turns out to be) than have RW as my #1. But to think you are continually dogging him for his TS%, when in fact objectively speaking he provides so much more on the basketball court than scoring, is confusing to say the least. He had a poor 2011 Playoffs showing, but until he goes Starbury on OKC there really is no reason at all to discredit him the way you for whatever reason continue to do so - he's been a huge factor to why they've had so much success the past two years.

[shangrila]

Honestly, I don't think I want Paul either. Maybe the Paul of a few years ago, but after his knee problems he looks like he's a step behind.

[cpfsf]

Technically, you could replace Chris Paul with Deron Williams since they have roughly have the same value.

That led me to this trade, although I wouldn't pull the trigger.
MIN IN: Harris + Favors + Kanter + 2012 GSW protected pick
UTAH IN: Rubio + Derrick Williams