Mattv wrote:We will have to disagree I guess. Dont get me wrong Westbrook has to play better. Everthing in this post could also be said about Schroder but except is isnt as athletic as Westbrook even with Westbrooks decline and doesnt even look to pass but time and time again to over look it and take up for him.Why?getrichordie wrote:Mattv wrote:The man is leading the Nba in assists.Thats what a true point guard does right?
Sent from my SM-G930T using RealGM mobile app
When I say "true" point-guard, what I mean is methodical point guards... these are your Chris Pauls, Rajon Rondos, Ricky Rubios...
Westbrook is not that. Westbrook is an albatross point-guard who isn't going to kill you methodically; he's going to kill you with athleticism...
How you are getting your assists doesn't matter so long as you are impacting the game and creating buckets for yourself or others. This is something that Westbrook has a hard time balancing. Even if he isn't shooting well, he's going to keep shooting instead of taking the more methodical approach of feeding his teammates and see who can catch fire... and well, that's the difference between a "true point" and an athletic 2-guard playing point.
EDIT: Here's a nice little post that might help explain what I mean (this is from over a year ago).Finally, the big one: Westbrook. Let's reduce his ridiculous physical gifts to average levels and what does he have left? Not much shooting, probably can't run an offense all that well, will struggle to create the type of space he needs to play-make. He's just not very good. The problem here is that he isn't much of a SG or SF either; he's sorta position-less. So what is he exactly? At a certain point, we have to acknowledge that the traditional (and arbitrary) player designations are pointless. Was Oscar Robertson a point guard? Everyone seems to think that he is (e.g. ESPN had him as the #2 greatest PG). And if Oscar Robertson was a point guard, why can't Westbrook be considered one? He isn't "traditional" or "real/pure" in the sense of "boring" or "bland", but the reasons why he isn't are also why he's an amazing game-changer. Players like Westbrook and Curry are reshaping the conceptions of point-guard play, of positions in general. Traditions change; that which is considered to be "true" in this moment of time may not be so 30 years into the future.
Sent from my SM-G930T using RealGM mobile app
The reason I take up for Schroder is because people do not understand the extent of how much his current circumstances and his past circumstances have affected his numbers. People often look at how a player is playing now and if he isn't being a major outlier in 1 or 2 statistical categories, he's labeled as bad. Sometimes it is all about context.
Oladipo could never be the player he is today if he continued playing Westbrook... I'm not saying Schroder is on Oladipo's level but circumstances are similar. Schroder is a lot better than most people think and this where I and others disagree. A lot of other people trust numbers and analytics and that is all good and well but it doesn't tell the whole story. Context does. You have to understand the past to understand the present and the future.
I trust my own two eyeballs and my own understanding of the game of basketball. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm right and that's just how things go sometimes. You win some, you lose some. But from everything I've seen from Schroder, I can tell you that Schroder is unequivocally way better than people think he is. He just hasn't found a "home" so to speak...












