How on earth did James Harden not make an All NBA team in 2016?

[HeartBreakKid]

he had a down season and klay thompson had the 73 win narrative

[LA Bird]

The answer to your question is one word: narrative.

^ This.

There is no evidence that Harden's defense was any worse in 2016 than 2015 or 2017. How was he not even an All-NBA player in 2016 but a top MVP candidate in the surrounding years? Everybody just ran with the no defense narrative because it was the easy explanation for the Rockets' disappointing performance. Harden had a poor start and the season was not as great as it would appear just based on the box scores but All NBA 3rd is not a very high bar. He was better than Lillard on both ends of the floor, was more durable, and even had better team performance in terms of on-court net and net on-off. Taking Klay over Harden just for team success is not much better. It would be the equivalent of having Rodman over Barkley as All NBA in 1996.

[WarriorGM]

I guess this confirms there are still people who will choose Harden and Paul as the better backcourt over Steph and Klay. It's why I will take wins as a superior metric over box scores in some contexts. But box scores! RAPM! It would be the equivalent of placing more value on cholesterol levels than mortality outcomes.

[freethedevil]

Wasn't he in his prime? I started watching HOU more in 2017, but the guy put 29/8/6 on 60% TS how did lowry and klay make it over him?

Also i know each year is different but LeBron James in 2019 missed alot of games, had worse stats, no playoffs (harden made playoffs) yet still made 3rd team. Doesn't make much sense to me....

One thing's for sure, you're right about the bolded.



Westbrook has done it since to become the fifth. Not putting Harden on at least the 2nd Team was a downright disgrace. The thread has given the "reasons" why, but the bottom line is that they aren't enough.

The real answer is that it was mostly that video of his defense that took on a life of its own. Harden played 3,125 minutes that season, but people watched a six minute video and twitter exploded for months and months about it. People are still talking about it like they actually watched him play, and I'm still smh...

Harden's defensive rpm was -0.98 and Lillard's was -3.16, but people are still talking about 2016 Harden like he was an all-time bad defender, because of a six minute video. Lillard made 2nd Team. Lillard's team won three more games, and Lillard didn't put up all-time numbers like Harden.

The answer to your question is one word: narrative.

Funny how you're using rpm to justify harden's defense, but don't use rpm to rate his overall play where harden ranked outside of the top 15. Also if you understood how rpm worked, you'd realize harden's #s would be inflated because he was on an average team. It's easier to lift something that weighs 20 pounds than something that lifts 40 pounds, and rpm treats lifting 40 pounds( a better team) as equally valuable to lifting 20 pounds.

Harden managed to make one of the worst defenses in the league even worse. Maybe lillard was worse, but given his team was better defensively, it's not as clear cut as comparing rpm's. Again though, if you want to use rpm, harden wasn't top 15, was barely top 15 looking at players who played more than at 30 min, and that was on a trash team. Should have harden been on a team? Probably. Is it the unjustifiable outrage you're saying it was? no,

I wish I could mass reply to this thread that Harden that season was the fourth player in history to average 29/6/7, after Oscar, MJ, and LeBron. In history. Ever.

Great. What does this prove?

The answer to your question is one word: narrative.

The answer is his team sucked. If you want to call that narrative, fine. It's no less of a narrative as Harden even being entertained as 2019's mvp because of gaudy box stats.

[freethedevil]

I guess this confirms there are still people who will choose Harden and Paul as the better backcourt over Steph and Klay. It's why I will take wins as a superior metric over box scores in some contexts. But box scores! RAPM! It would be the equivalent of placing more value on cholesterol levels than mortality outcomes.

Draymond being vastly more important to the dubs than klay destroys your case for steph and klay over paul and harden.


This is why winning doesn't tell you much on it's own.

[freethedevil]

The answer to your question is one word: narrative.

^ This.

There is no evidence that Harden's defense was any worse in 2016 than 2015 or 2017. How was he not even an All-NBA player in 2016 but a top MVP candidate in the surrounding years?

Because his offense improved. And there is evidence his defense improved. Not to the point he's average, but it did.

[WarriorGM]

I guess this confirms there are still people who will choose Harden and Paul as the better backcourt over Steph and Klay. It's why I will take wins as a superior metric over box scores in some contexts. But box scores! RAPM! It would be the equivalent of placing more value on cholesterol levels than mortality outcomes.

Draymond being vastly more important to the dubs than klay destroys your case for steph and klay over paul and harden.

This is why winning doesn't tell you much on it's own.

And that conclusion is based on RAPM right?

[freethedevil]

I guess this confirms there are still people who will choose Harden and Paul as the better backcourt over Steph and Klay. It's why I will take wins as a superior metric over box scores in some contexts. But box scores! RAPM! It would be the equivalent of placing more value on cholesterol levels than mortality outcomes.

Draymond being vastly more important to the dubs than klay destroys your case for steph and klay over paul and harden.

This is why winning doesn't tell you much on it's own.

And that conclusion is based on RAPM right?

rapm, rpm, +/-, pipm. net rating, or, if you want(because you like winning so much), just looking at how the team does without klay compared to how it does without draymond.

What makes you think klay is better?

[WarriorGM]

Draymond being vastly more important to the dubs than klay destroys your case for steph and klay over paul and harden.

This is why winning doesn't tell you much on it's own.

And that conclusion is based on RAPM right?

rapm, rpm, +/-, pipm. net rating, or, if you want(because you like winning so much), just looking at how the team does without klay compared to how it does without draymond.

What makes you think klay is better?

This year's finals. 2016 WCF and Finals. Klay depending on if he is hot or cold can be decisive.

[freethedevil]

And that conclusion is based on RAPM right?

rapm, rpm, +/-, pipm. net rating, or, if you want(because you like winning so much), just looking at how the team does without klay compared to how it does without draymond.

What makes you think klay is better?

This year's finals. 2016 WCF and Finals. Klay depending on if he is hot or cold can be decisive.

Oh, so his ppg in a handful of games. Got it.

[WarriorGM]

rapm, rpm, +/-, pipm. net rating, or, if you want(because you like winning so much), just looking at how the team does without klay compared to how it does without draymond.

What makes you think klay is better?

This year's finals. 2016 WCF and Finals. Klay depending on if he is hot or cold can be decisive.

Oh, so his ppg in a handful of games. Got it.

Yeah, but what games! History and career defining games.

If Harden and Paul could take down a pair like Durant and Westbrook like Steph and Klay did maybe we'd have something to go on instead what we have is a history of Harden and Paul falling short both individually and together at the moment of truth. Intangibles matter to me.

[freethedevil]

This year's finals. 2016 WCF and Finals. Klay depending on if he is hot or cold can be decisive.

Oh, so his ppg in a handful of games. Got it.

Yeah, but what games! History and career defining games.

Compared to career defining seasons and postseasons?

If Harden and Paul could take down a pair like Durant and Westbrook like Steph and Klay did

Still waiting for justification for placing klay instead of dray when the warriors are worse without the latter than they are without the former.

[WarriorGM]

Oh, so his ppg in a handful of games. Got it.

Yeah, but what games! History and career defining games.

Compared to career defining seasons and postseasons?

If Harden and Paul could take down a pair like Durant and Westbrook like Steph and Klay did

Still waiting for justification for placing klay instead of dray when the warriors are worse without the latter than they are without the former.

Since it seems you need me to explain my reference to the above games: 2016 WCF, Klay was great Draymond wasn't, Warriors win. 2016 finals, Draymond was great Klay wasn't, Warriors lose.

[freethedevil]

Yeah, but what games! History and career defining games.

Compared to career defining seasons and postseasons?

If Harden and Paul could take down a pair like Durant and Westbrook like Steph and Klay did

Still waiting for justification for placing klay instead of dray when the warriors are worse without the latter than they are without the former.

Since it seems you need me to explain my reference to the above games: 2016 WCF, Klay was great Draymond wasn't, Warriors win.

Are you asserting that the warriors could have won without draymond? If not, then klay being great doesn't really mean anything. You need to show klay had more value than draymond. I can easily just say the two series show that "poor" draymond is more valuable than "poor" klay and that klay needs to play great to offer comparable value.

[WarriorGM]

Compared to career defining seasons and postseasons?


Still waiting for justification for placing klay instead of dray when the warriors are worse without the latter than they are without the former.

Since it seems you need me to explain my reference to the above games: 2016 WCF, Klay was great Draymond wasn't, Warriors win.

Are you asserting that the warriors could have won without draymond? If not, then klay being great doesn't really mean anything. You need to show klay had more value than draymond. I can easily just say the two series show that "poor" draymond is more valuable than "poor" klay and that klay needs to play great to offer comparable value.

Poor Draymond may have more value than poor Klay but the instances provided suggest peak Klay is more likely than peak Draymond to get you into the history books.

[freethedevil]

Since it seems you need me to explain my reference to the above games: 2016 WCF, Klay was great Draymond wasn't, Warriors win.

Are you asserting that the warriors could have won without draymond? If not, then klay being great doesn't really mean anything. You need to show klay had more value than draymond. I can easily just say the two series show that "poor" draymond is more valuable than "poor" klay and that klay needs to play great to offer comparable value.

Poor Draymond may have more value than poor Klay but the instances provided suggest peak Klay is more likely than peak Draymond to get you into the history books.

And based on what was "peak" klay even better than "poor" draymond, let alone "peak" dray?

[WarriorGM]

Are you asserting that the warriors could have won without draymond? If not, then klay being great doesn't really mean anything. You need to show klay had more value than draymond. I can easily just say the two series show that "poor" draymond is more valuable than "poor" klay and that klay needs to play great to offer comparable value.

Poor Draymond may have more value than poor Klay but the instances provided suggest peak Klay is more likely than peak Draymond to get you into the history books.

And based on what was "peak" klay even better than "poor" draymond, let alone "peak" dray?

2016 WCF, Klay was great Draymond wasn't, Warriors win. 2016 finals, Draymond was great Klay wasn't, Warriors lose.

Don't make me feel like a broken record please.

[freethedevil]

Poor Draymond may have more value than poor Klay but the instances provided suggest peak Klay is more likely than peak Draymond to get you into the history books.

And based on what was "peak" klay even better than "poor" draymond, let alone "peak" dray?

2016 WCF, Klay was great Draymond wasn't, Warriors win. 2016 finals, Draymond was great Klay wasn't, Warriors lose.

Don't make me feel like a broken record please.

Yes, you said klay was great in the wcf and draymond was poor. Based on what was "great" klay more important for winning the wcf than "poor" dray?

[Sublime187]

Yeah, but what games! History and career defining games.

Compared to career defining seasons and postseasons?

If Harden and Paul could take down a pair like Durant and Westbrook like Steph and Klay did

Still waiting for justification for placing klay instead of dray when the warriors are worse without the latter than they are without the former.

Since it seems you need me to explain my reference to the above games: 2016 WCF, Klay was great Draymond wasn't, Warriors win. 2016 finals, Draymond was great Klay wasn't, Warriors lose.

You are using one series to say that Klay was better then Green? Lmao.

[freethedevil]

Compared to career defining seasons and postseasons?


Still waiting for justification for placing klay instead of dray when the warriors are worse without the latter than they are without the former.

Since it seems you need me to explain my reference to the above games: 2016 WCF, Klay was great Draymond wasn't, Warriors win. 2016 finals, Draymond was great Klay wasn't, Warriors lose.

You are using one series to say that Klay was better then Green? Lmao.

It amazes me people think "you lost the finals without x" proves x's value to a team. It started with "warriors can't win without kd". This is just the next level. Everyone becomes more valuable when the opposition becomes tougher. So a player going out and the team losing to the best possible opponent doesn't prove anything.