James Harden is a superstar

[Krodis]

The Rockets are up to 4th in ORTG.

[Rapcity_11]

I agree. I don't think that many of the posters here think the way players do and base many of their arguments on a fans perspective and not the way many players actually play the game. Which is why the whole impact vs winning argument is so funny to me.

Uh, Impact essentially = winning. That's the whole point, which is clearly going over your head.

During a game, during the heat of the competition, especially at the highest levels players are not giving a damn about their efficiency.

Sure they do. Guys talk about getting good shots all the time, especially in crunch time situations. They aren't directly referencing TS%, but they are focused on team efficiency.

However if a player is in a contract year, or his team is not in contention, or the player is just selfish they may concern themself more with their "impact stats" than with teams success.

Dude, "impact stats" are all about team success. They are just a little more nuanced that W-L record.

Also, how would one concern themselves more with these "impact stats"?

Now I may be wrong here. Perhaps Harden does know when he is taking a bad shot. Perhaps he does know that he should only be attacking the rim. Well let's go to the game logs this year and see:

Nov 3 POR 8-24 FG, 1-6 3P
Nov 7 DEN 5-15 FG, 0-5 3P
Nov 9 MEM 4-18 FG, 1-6 3P
Nov 12 MIA 6-17 FG, 1-6 3P
Nov 18 LAL 7-18 FG, 3-7 3P
Nov 28 OKC 3-16 FG, 2-5 3P
Dec 4 LAL 3-19 FG, 0-4 3P
Dec 14 BOS 6-17 FG, 2-7 3P
Dec 16 TOR 7-18 FG, 0-3 3P
Dec 29 OKC 6-17 FG, 2-7 3P
Dec 31 ATL 7-17 FG, 2-6 3P
Jan 5 CLE 6-17 FG, 3-9 3P
Jan 16 DAL 5-23 FG, 1-8 3P
Jan 18 IND 5-19 FG, 3-7 3P
Jan 19 MIN 5-18 FG, 0-7 3P
Jan 21 CHA 5-20 FG, 0-5 3P

I wonder at what point during that road trip in January that Harden went 4-27 on 3PA's if he thought he was taking a bad shot? Or when he went 20-80 FGA over a four game stretch if he was wondering what a bad shot was. Let's get back to that later.

So wait now Harden doesn't care about efficiency? Which is it? Make up your mind.

Harden has 16 games where his FG% is under 40%. In comparison Kobe has 12.

Too bad FG% says just about nothing about scoring efficiency. But hey, keep living in a world where you ignore FT's and 3's to spin your own narrative.

So I'm spinning a narrative

Spot on....

[Rapcity_11]

Okc is dominating just fine without harden. What's funny is you had people that said harden was the engine that made their offense go but they've been better this season without him

Most of that can be explained by the starting lineup going from 102.9 Ortg to 109 Ortg. Which of course has nothing to do with Harden.

Also, it's incredibly ironic for you to be laughing at other people's opinions or Harden.

[E-Balla]

Just saw that both OKC and Houston had the same record at the same point of the year last year . Both teams didn't improve or get worse. Amazing.

[E-Balla]

Thought I'd post this here:
Lin without Harden per36: 18.3/3.8/8.9 on 59.5TS
Lin with Harden: 12.9/3.8/6.3 on 51.5TS

Asik without Harden per36: 17/13.9/0.8 on 56TS
Asik with Harden: 11.7/13.9/1.2 on 55TS

Douglas without Harden per36: 17.8/3.2/4.7 on 58TS
Douglas with Harden: 14/3.9/2.8 on 47TS

It continues this way with most of the team. Any Rockets fans know why they're better without him?

[90sAllDecade]

^What was the sample size and where did you get those numbers? Just curious.

[E-Balla]

Sample size is the whole season (500ish minutes with and without for Toney, 300ish minutes without for both Lin and Asik). They're on the nba stats cube (type it in google).

[TheChosen618]

Thought I'd post this here:
Lin without Harden per36: 18.3/3.8/8.9 on 59.5TS
Lin with Harden: 12.9/3.8/6.3 on 51.5TS

Asik without Harden per36: 17/13.9/0.8 on 56TS
Asik with Harden: 11.7/13.9/1.2 on 55TS

Douglas without Harden per36: 17.8/3.2/4.7 on 58TS
Douglas with Harden: 14/3.9/2.8 on 47TS

It continues this way with most of the team. Any Rockets fans know why they're better without him?

I knew Lin stats are better without him, the reason being is that Lin becomes the clear cut primary ball-handler and the #1 option on the team when Harden is not out there. Also, Lin dominated against the Spurs when Harden sat out due to an injury.

I've always said Harden is an overrated passer and playmaker but for whatever reason though, a lot of people slurp and adore his passing ability. He really is a score-first player, he is just not afraid to make passes and he isn't a blackhole like Carmelo Anthony or Andrew Bynum is. The problem is that a lot of his passes are really bad and often times lead to turnovers and steals for the opposing team. I guess it's his decision making that a lot of people love about him whether it's him taking the shot or passing it to an open player, but his passes can be just straight up horrible sometimes.

I think another reason as to why Douglas and Asik playing better without Harden is because Lin is a better passer/playmaker and trusts them more. However, I think a large part of why Lin trusts those two more is because he doesn't trust his scoring as much as Harden does. Harden is a top 5 scorer in the game, so he really should trust himself and take himself over everyone on his team to score.

[CBA]

...Toney Douglas? Huh?

[GSP]

Okcs team offense, team assists and efficiency as well as turnovers all got better by a good margin this year.............I think Hardens playmaking is very overrated he doesnt impact that part of the game anywhere near as Westbrook.

[CKRT]

Okcs team offense, team assists and efficiency as well as turnovers all got better by a good margin this year.............I think Hardens playmaking is very overrated he doesnt impact that part of the game anywhere near as Westbrook.

aaaand none of that was Hardens problem. OKC improved by virtue of being young, not by Harden leaving.

[CKRT]

and Harden is elite at the PnR, and destroys anyone on OKC at running it.

[Rapcity_11]

It's amazing how much of an impact the OKC starting lineup's offensive improvement has had on people's analysis of James Harden. Mind-blowing, really.

[fallacy]

and Harden is elite at the PnR, and destroys anyone on OKC at running it.

He is elite at one thing, and is very very very good at it. In terms of PPP, Harden is in the top 20 of one offensive aspect. That is obviously P&R handling, where he is 5th in the NBA.


In comparison, Durant isn't outside the top 20 in any aspect of offense. Lebron is only outside of two aspects.


Harden is amazing at one thing, but he needs to work on the rest of his game. For example, he's 100th in the NBA in PPP on spot ups and 65th in the NBA in post ups. He's 38th overall in the NBA, that's by no means bad.


Harden has been great though, despite all his weaknesses. I'm ready to call him a superstar as soon as he can lead his team in the playoffs.

[fallacy]

It's amazing how much of an impact the OKC starting lineup's offensive improvement has had on people's analysis of James Harden. Mind-blowing, really.

West/Harden/Durant/Ibaka/Perkins last year was a net +.05 rating and "won" 50.9% of the time

West/Kmart/Durant/Ibaka/Perkins this year is a net +.07 rating and "wins" 61.1% of the time.



It has more to do with Brooks actually using Ibaka this year than with Harden though. Perk not being worthless also helps the ratings.

[CousinOfDeath]

and Harden is elite at the PnR, and destroys anyone on OKC at running it.

He is elite at one thing, and is very very very good at it. In terms of PPP, Harden is in the top 20 of one offensive aspect. That is obviously P&R handling, where he is 5th in the NBA.


In comparison, Durant isn't outside the top 20 in any aspect of offense. Lebron is only outside of two aspects.


Harden is amazing at one thing, but he needs to work on the rest of his game. For example, he's 100th in the NBA in PPP on spot ups and 65th in the NBA in post ups. He's 38th overall in the NBA, that's by no means bad.


Harden has been great though, despite all his weaknesses. I'm ready to call him a superstar as soon as he can lead his team in the playoffs.

Why does he have to get better at spot ups and post ups if they're simply not a part of his game? He seems to do pretty well without them.

[LarsV8]

Why does he have to get better at spot ups and post ups if they're simply not a part of his game? He seems to do pretty well without them.

Yea, I don't get that.

He doesn't really need a post up game.

[tsherkin]

Lets go over that Harden performance again in the finals so we can get the spin right:
...
The Heat were able to neutralize Harden and kept him off the FT line.

What? He drew 0.5 FTA/FGA in the Finals. It wasn't as good as the ~ 0.59 he managed in the regular season, but he was still drawing fouls at a VERY high rate, so what you just said was badly incorrect. Harden managed to average 4.8 FTA/g against 9.6 FGA/g in 32.8 mpg. His much bigger problem was actually that he wasn't hitting the three effectively and that he shot 42.3% FG inside of the arc (compared to 57.9% in the regular season). He was struggling at the rim and also being forced away from the rim a little more by Miami's defense.

Game 1
2-5 FG, 0-0 FT, 3 ast, 4 PF, 5 pts

Yep. Don't forget to mention 22 minutes played. The foul trouble limited his utility in this game and in a 5-game sample, that will certainly change your averages. It was by no means a good game, of course, just food for thought.

Game 2
7-11 FG, 5-7 FT, 2 ast, 21 pts

About 35 minutes played from the bench. Looked very good. 10/26 shooting from Westbrook helped lose this game (Miami won by 4 points)... but he wasn't alone. Besides Durant and Harden, the team shot 32.6% from the field. If you remove Westbrook and just look at Thabo, Perkins, Ibaka and Fisher, they shot 5/20, or 25%. Can't really look to Harden as the issue here.

Game 3
2-10 FG, 5-7 FT, 6 ast, 9 pts

Rough game. 2/6 under the arc. He was 2/3 around the rim, missed another shot in the paint and a 20-footer. Bad game from a scoring standpoint; created effectively for others, drew fouls exceptionally well. He was uninvolved in the team's offense for a large chunk of his brief appearance in the 3rd quarter until he drew a pair of shooting fouls. He split the FTAs, which was on him. He also took a pair of threes in the last 5 seconds of the quarter, so it's a little difficult to look at his raw efficiency for a direct comparison, but even if you removed both, he'd still have had a rough game over 34 minutes. Not a stellar performance by any means, which typified his series. I wouldn't be playing that up so much though, given the stinkers Lebron put up in 2007 and Durant in his first postseason appearance, what Melo has done over his career in the playoffs, etc. Context matters, and the quality of the defense you're facing is a factor. See Bryant, Kobe, 2008. Hell, look at what Jordan did against Seattle and Utah during the second three-peat; MJ was considerably less effective in those series than he'd been in earlier playoff matchups.

Game 4
2-10 FG, 3-4 FT, 2 ast, 8 pts

Flat-out bad game. He rebounded very well but he was turning the ball over and fouling left, right and center. Pretty much no angle to discuss this game in a positive light aside from the rebounding. He was 1/5 above and below the arc and looked impotent the whole night.

Game 5
5-11 FG, 6-6 Ft, 5 ast, 19 pts

Closed out with another good game.

All this crap about the Thunder losing out on a championship, well what happened last year? That doesn't count? When he isn't getting double digit FTA's Harden is very ordinary.

That's not a terribly accurate comment, no. Like any player, he does better when such things happen and it's very true that he's pretty much a "three, rim or bust" player, but to say that a guy who generates as many shots around the rim as does he and plays the PnR so magnificently in the process is bad without 10+ FTA/g is simply not correct. Does he have flaws? Sure. Did those flaws present themselves as a bench player in the Finals against one of the best defenses in the league? Absolutely. Does that mean he can't ever grow as a player? No, that would be a weak extension of that circumstance, or no one would have ever believed in Lebron after 2007 and 2011.

I was pulling for OKC last year and watching Harden choke in the finals showed me that he is replaceable in the Thunder lineup. The irreplaceable piece is Durant.

This isn't a meaningful comment, given that it was always obvious that Durant was the team's superstar player and is one of the two or three best players in the league...

I have yet to see Houston beat OKC this year; in fact losing two games by a total of FIFTY-TWO points.

"Houston" immediately invalidates this as a relevant point, though, since you're talking team efficacy and the Thunder are a much deeper and better team overall. You're talking about the reigning WC champs, who lost a bench player and gained another hyper-efficient scorer while their star player is having his best season to date. This isn't exactly a fair comparison. Meantime, Houston and Oklahoma City have played twice.

Houston lost by 22 in the first game. Harden did have a bad game. Patterson and Asik were the only guys who actually played well for the Rockets that game. The second game, they lost by 30 and Harden had a better game, though he still struggled with his shot and finishing around the basket, but he was able to draw a lot of fouls and be highly effective that way. Parsons and Lin were invisible, Asik managed 4 points and the bench went 8/27 for 24 points... and was useless apart from Toney Douglas, who had a solid night offensively (but was actually on the floor for the majority of the butt-kicking). Harden was actually only on for 31 minutes, though, so his raw stats are somewhat skewed.

Context is important, and the fact that Houston is a vastly inferior team shouldn't be held against Harden. I've said this before in other threads, but Hell, MJ led his team to records of 38-44 and 40-42 in his first two seasons (though the EC was bad enough that he made the playoffs both years).

Those seasons, he averaged:

84-85: 28.2 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 5.9 apg, 2.4 spg, 59.2% TS
86-87: 37.1 ppg (scoring title), 5.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, 2.9 spg, 1.5 bpg, 56.2% TS

His teams were 11th (of 23) and 12th in team offense. They were, by contrast, 21st (of 23) and 23rd in pace, but my point is that he was a HUGE volume scorer on very strong efficiency... that 87 season? That's the highest non-Wilt scoring output in league history, and he couldn't even get his team to .500 ball.

Can we really look at team performance here and crack down on the star player when the GOAT couldn't manage to do a lot better until his team improved? Harden's far less skilled than even 1st- and 3rd- year Jordan, and the 2013 Rockets are better than the coke-addled Bulls squads of the mid-80s, but think about the implications there. What was Harden supposed to do with a team that doesn't have another All-Star caliber player on the roster? The fact that they're treading water is good enough. Never mind that Patterson and Delfino have missed 7 and 11 games, respectively, or that they have no depth, or that their coach tucked out because of some serious personal issues for a while and all that. Never mind that they've steadily improved on offense over the balance of the season to date, or that Harden is maintaining 25+ ppg on strong efficiency over the last 36 games despite fluctuations in his 3P% and FT%. Never mind that it is his first season as a number one scoring option and that takes some adjustment, or that he's 23 years old. Never mind that Houston shipped out it's THREE top scorers (Scola, Martin and Lowry), and replaced Goran Dragic with Jeremy Lin, lost Courney Lee and Chase Budinger, lost Camby and Dalembert, lost Jordan Hill...

So I just described to you 9 of their top 11 players in terms of minutes played from 2011-2012; the 2013 squad is essentially an entirely new team, and yet we're discussing this as if the context between this season and their performance in 2012 is actually something with a foundation for discussion. They totally overhauled their entire roster and gave up the majority of their quality scoring pieces, then handed the reigns to Harden and said "go nuts." And in the process, they are in fact performing more successfully on offense by a rather large margin, and managing a fairly similar defensive performance. They've backslid on the offensive glass and improved on the defensive glass, they're drawing fouls and hitting threes more effectively and their raw per-possession offensive output is superior this year. It's hard to look at all of that and really give the business end of heavy criticism to James Harden, given the context of the situation. Taken objectively, it's pretty clear that Harden has done a very good job. He's not alone on the team, but given the overhaul and the performance compared to last year's team, he's doing very well.

It's funny that last year after 50 games OKC was 38-12. Guess what their record is this year after 50 games? 38-12, I don't think the Thunder are missing Harden.

Why is that funny? They still have Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka, and they added a player who replaces Harden's efficient scoring... and he's managed to stay healthy so far. They clearly didn't lose a step because they still have a BOATLOAD of talent, Durant's playing even better than he had the previous season AND they replaced a chunk of what Harden did. No one sane EXPECTED them to have a significant drop-off in the RS, so where's the value to this statement?

And guess what Houston's record looks a lot like it did last year. They were great at home and horrible on the road. Houston is a team that feasts on teams at home and struggles on the road, same as last year.

See above; you can't fairly compare the two situations because the rosters are almost entirely different.

[tsherkin]

Why does he have to get better at spot ups and post ups if they're simply not a part of his game? He seems to do pretty well without them.

It's a fair criticism because right now, Harden has basically three options on offense: slash to the rim, draw contact away from the rim in the paint, or hoist a three. If he had a little more off-ball game, it would help Jeremy Lin suck less, because he's even worse without the ball, and it would give him a few different ways to attack a defense that's denying him his bread-and-butter stuff. You don't need to be the Man Of A Million Moves, but it tends to be more effective if you have some fall-backs if your primary stuff doesn't work.

MJ was a fantastic off-ball score who really developed his jumper over the length of his career, coupled with developing his post game. It allowed him to be effective in a host of different situations. We see Billups maintaining efficacy on the basis of post isos, PnRs and three-point shooting. Kobe is another guard who has added post game to give himself some different looks. You don't need to embody versatility as a concept, but having one or two wrinkles to your game can really help. If Harden was more effective at playing off-ball in some Ray-Ray/Reggie type pin-down sets, he'd also end up slightly more consistent and efficient from downtown, which would be to all of Houston's benefit, for one specific example.

Basically, he needs to find a way to score effectively when he can't get all the way to the rim or draw a foul on a slash into the paint. In the absence of all of those things, he needs to develop an effective pull-up jumper that he can hit at a high rate of efficiency relative to his peers. One area where someone like Melo has Harden beat is that he CAN be a very effective off-ball player, moving around screens or waiting to opportunistically strike with a catch-and-shoot jumper, for example. Harden can do these things, but he doesn't do them enough yet.

[TheChosen618]

Yea, I don't get that.

He doesn't really need a post up game.

He does need to be a bit more diverse and versatile in his scoring attack. Predictable arsenals tend to get exposed very bad in the playoffs, such as Harden last season in the Finals.

West/Harden/Durant/Ibaka/Perkins last year was a net +.05 rating and "won" 50.9% of the time

West/Kmart/Durant/Ibaka/Perkins this year is a net +.07 rating and "wins" 61.1% of the time.

It has more to do with Brooks actually using Ibaka this year than with Harden though. Perk not being worthless also helps the ratings.

I would say Ibaka is being used more because of Harden's departure though. Westbrook is being asked to set up his teammates more since he has the ball in his hands more often now with Harden gone. Ibaka is one of Westbrook's go-to assist guys because of their pick and pop and pick and roll game with one another.

I just think Martin blends in and maximizes OKC's talents better, such as Ibaka, Westbrook, and Durant's game because of his scoring versatility, his ability to move without the ball, and his superior shooting ability. Harden is a good shooter himself, but he isn't as good of a shooter as Martin and he is definitely not even close to Martin when it comes to moving the ball. It is why OKC's offensive rating has improved this season compared to last, although they were #1 in offensive efficiency in both cases.

Harden is clearly better than Martin and by a lot. If Martin was better, OKC wouldn't have asked Houston to send Lamb and a bunch of draft picks to go along with it, but Harden is not a better fit for OKC than Martin is.

I would say the James Harden-Steve Nash analogy is pretty good.