Would OKC win more games with a different point guard?

[Yoshun]

No, I actually don't know if there is any PG in the history of the game would could do more with this roster.

Westbrook might be the GOAT floor raising PG, especially after this season where he brings a roster that probably would win 5 games without him to the 6th seed.

His teammates suck because of the Westbrook-tailor made offense. Zero movement to get the other players involved. No cutting or sets. If he'd simply allow the team to run some sets with movement they'd be considerably better. You can't tell me Russ can't create shots from off ball situations. If he can blow by guys with the ball, why isn't he running a few plays where he cuts off the ball to get others involved? Apparently he's as sharpe as a marble. And he's also selfish enough to run off a Top Ten HoF talent.

So yeah, I'd say keeping Harden and trading Westbrook would've been the better move and all of those Okc Jags would look similar to Harden's Jags in Houston. 7 seconds or less doesn't freeze out teammates...dribbling the ball for 18 seconds of every shot clock does.

Westbrook doesn't do this though. Check the stats on pace and how OKC utilizes the shot clock. More than 71% of their shots come within 15 seconds, 42% within 10 seconds. By comparison, Houston takes 72% of their shots within 15 seconds and 44% within 10 seconds. The pace is pretty close. OKC is not a slow paced team by any means.

This idea of Wesrbrook dribbling around for 18 to 20 seconds, then dishing off to teammate just before the shot clock runs out to get an assist isn't true. His usage is so high because a majority of the team's possessions end in 15 seconds or less and he averages a little over 10 seconds of handle on each one. Partially because he grabs just under 9 defensive rebounds per game and takes them up the floor himself.

[LookToShoot]

I'd say he fits the needs of this particular OKC roster, so no.

[Bergmaniac]

I see a lot of hot takes from people who clearly barely ever watch OKC. The claim that their team would be better with George Hill takes the cake.

Anyway, for the question in OP - Curry, most likely. Maybe Harden. CP3 doesn't have the legs to do it in the regular season anymore. Wall could do it on other rosters, but Thunder need volume scoring badly so the team will probably do worse with him.

[NaturalThunder]

Eh. They're probably a 32-36 win team without Westbrook IMO if you replaced him with Hill, Conley, Teague, etc.

I disagree. I think George Hill would make OKC a 50 win team. The Thunder would definitely be better with him than they are with Westbrook.

[Thabo Sefolosha]

Eh. They're probably a 32-36 win team without Westbrook IMO if you replaced him with Hill, Conley, Teague, etc.

I disagree. I think George Hill would make OKC a 50 win team. The Thunder would definitely be better with him than they are with Westbrook.

I was about to get mad at you until I saw your sig....

[Duke4life831]

No. But OKC needs Westbrook to walk a line of being the dominant force that he is and icing out his own players. For many nights he walks that line beautifully but there are nights where he doesnt, like what we saw in game 2. I also dont buy the narrative that he is playing with trash. Adams, Kanter, Oladipo, Gibson and Roberson are not garbage players. Those guys would be getting heavy minutes on any team. I think it takes a special player to do what Westbrook has done, but I also think there is a lot of improvement he can make on not icing his teammates out as much and start making his teammates better. That is why I think Harden deserved the MVP this year, I thought he was put into a similar situation and walked that line much better and showed a huge growth in his game.

[Ugly0598]

Eh. They're probably a 32-36 win team without Westbrook IMO if you replaced him with Hill, Conley, Teague, etc.

I disagree. I think George Hill would make OKC a 50 win team. The Thunder would definitely be better with him than they are with Westbrook.

George had a very good year (when not injured), I am afraid we probably won't be able to afford him if we re-sign Hayward & Ingles. It would be interesting to see some of these other PG's getting the green light like that to shoot.

[Coxy]

Eh. They're probably a 32-36 win team without Westbrook IMO if you replaced him with Hill, Conley, Teague, etc.

I disagree. I think George Hill would make OKC a 50 win team. The Thunder would definitely be better with him than they are with Westbrook.

George had a very good year (when not injured), I am afraid we probably won't be able to afford him if we re-sign Hayward & Ingles. It would be interesting to see some of these other PG's getting the green light like that to shoot.

None of them would though. They are team orientated players, unlike the player in question.

[Young_Star11]

Sticking with only Stephen Curry having a similar season to 2015/16 with his own team. Bigger question is whether or not players like Oladipo/Adams etc improve with a different guy at the point.

[Volcano]

Sure, if Lebron is that PG

[NaturalThunder]

I disagree. I think George Hill would make OKC a 50 win team. The Thunder would definitely be better with him than they are with Westbrook.

George had a very good year (when not injured), I am afraid we probably won't be able to afford him if we re-sign Hayward & Ingles. It would be interesting to see some of these other PG's getting the green light like that to shoot.

None of them would though. They are team orientated players, unlike the player in question.

And, unlike the player in question, none of them would sniff 47 wins if they replaced Westbrook on the Thunder this year.

Including George Hill.

[CrazyKnicks]

Westbrook has to play like this because his supporting cast is bad. I'm sure he'd like to take less shots and have less pressure on him. Sure he's not the most team oriented player and takes selfish shots at times. But besides the Raptors rise a few years ago after Gay was gone, you don't see (vet) players get marginally better once the best player on the team leaves. Their second best scorer in Kanter can't play any defense, Roberson is a liability on offense and team don't care to guard him, Adams isn't anything to brag about, Oladipo hasn't lived up to expectations. So who exactly scares other teams on OKC?

Someone mentioned Harden, he has way more shooters around him and the perfect system to fit his style.

[Coxy]

George had a very good year (when not injured), I am afraid we probably won't be able to afford him if we re-sign Hayward & Ingles. It would be interesting to see some of these other PG's getting the green light like that to shoot.

None of them would though. They are team orientated players, unlike the player in question.

And, unlike the player in question, none of them would sniff 47 wins if they replaced Westbrook on the Thunder this year.

Including George Hill.

You don't know that.

[NaturalThunder]

None of them would though. They are team orientated players, unlike the player in question.

And, unlike the player in question, none of them would sniff 47 wins if they replaced Westbrook on the Thunder this year.

Including George Hill.

You don't know that.

And you don't know that George Hill would make OKC better, or that any of those other PGs would lead OKC to 45-47 wins. Fact of the matter is, and what makes your argument so bad, is that none of them (including George Hill) are anywhere near the player Westbrook is.

[Coxy]

And, unlike the player in question, none of them would sniff 47 wins if they replaced Westbrook on the Thunder this year.

Including George Hill.

You don't know that.

And you don't know that George Hill would make OKC better, or that any of those other PGs would lead OKC to 45-47 wins. Fact of the matter is, and what makes your argument so bad, is that none of them (including George Hill) are anywhere near the player Westbrook is.

That's not what I'm debating. Westbrook is by far a better individual player. But as a teammate, leader and all round player, he's nowhere near the other guys. I'm a huge believer in chemistry, and the team game. High character guys are hugely valued, and help to build a proper team. Westbrook drove one of the greatest players the game has ever seen away from the team, that's all you need to know really. Watching Westbrook play makes my eyes bleed as a coach, even if he regularly does things that amaze and astound. He is a huge conundrum, especially for a coach. The Thunder's players are so incredibly under utilised playing next to Westbrook.

Again, this is just my opinion, and your entitled to yours as well. ONCE AGAIN, you have given me zero reason to change it.

[ClubLakers KB8]

No. Because the team flat out sucks aside from him. Kanter, KANTER, may be the second best player. He's on his own.

[NaturalThunder]

You don't know that.

And you don't know that George Hill would make OKC better, or that any of those other PGs would lead OKC to 45-47 wins. Fact of the matter is, and what makes your argument so bad, is that none of them (including George Hill) are anywhere near the player Westbrook is.

That's not what I'm debating. Westbrook is by far a better individual player. But as a teammate, leader and all round player, he's nowhere near the other guys. I'm a huge believer in chemistry, and the team game. High character guys are hugely valued, and help to build a proper team. Westbrook drove one of the greatest players the game has ever seen away from the team, that's all you need to know really. Watching Westbrook play makes my eyes bleed as a coach, even if he regularly does things that amaze and astound. He is a huge conundrum, especially for a coach. The Thunder's players are so incredibly under utilised playing next to Westbrook.

Again, this is just my opinion, and your entitled to yours as well. ONCE AGAIN, you have given me zero reason to change it.

I'm sorry I've been a jerk about all of this, but I just don't see any reason to give an argument in attempt to convince you to change your mind. The notion that OKC would've been better this year with George Hill instead of Russell Westbrook is so absurd that there's really no reason to argue against it. Your argument is its own argument against itself due to its absurdity.

I'm not sure you could find one other poster on RealGM that would agree with you.

[NaturalThunder]

No. Because the team flat out sucks aside from him. Kanter, KANTER, may be the second best player. He's on his own.

OKC's second best player right now is Taj Gibson. Unfortunately, before game three, OKC's moron head coach thought just 20 MPG was enough for him.

And as much as I love Gbson, and as great as he is as an ultimate glue guy, if he's your second best player then your superstar's supporting cast isn't very good.

[Coxy]

And you don't know that George Hill would make OKC better, or that any of those other PGs would lead OKC to 45-47 wins. Fact of the matter is, and what makes your argument so bad, is that none of them (including George Hill) are anywhere near the player Westbrook is.

That's not what I'm debating. Westbrook is by far a better individual player. But as a teammate, leader and all round player, he's nowhere near the other guys. I'm a huge believer in chemistry, and the team game. High character guys are hugely valued, and help to build a proper team. Westbrook drove one of the greatest players the game has ever seen away from the team, that's all you need to know really. Watching Westbrook play makes my eyes bleed as a coach, even if he regularly does things that amaze and astound. He is a huge conundrum, especially for a coach. The Thunder's players are so incredibly under utilised playing next to Westbrook.

Again, this is just my opinion, and your entitled to yours as well. ONCE AGAIN, you have given me zero reason to change it.

I'm sorry I've been a jerk about all of this, but I just don't see any reason to give an argument in attempt to convince you to change your mind. The notion that OKC would've been better this year with George Hill instead of Russell Westbrook is so absurd that there's really no reason to argue against it. Your argument is its own argument against itself due to its absurdity.

I'm not sure you could find one other poster on RealGM that would agree with you.

Fine, then if you can't counter it, run along. Go watch some highlight dunks of Russell.

[ClubLakers KB8]

No. Because the team flat out sucks aside from him. Kanter, KANTER, may be the second best player. He's on his own.

OKC's second best player right now is Taj Gibson. Unfortunately, before game three, OKC's moron head coach thought just 20 MPG was enough for him.

And as much as I love Gbson, and as great as he is as an ultimate glue guy, if he's your second best player then your superstar's supporting cast isn't very good.

I said "may", but we're ultimately debating nothing. If you're debating a #2 on a team and neither can sniff an all star team, what's the point?