Which versions of Barkley would you take over '17 Westbrook?

[Matt15]

Title

[No-more-rings]

0. 2017 Westbrook was better and more impactful than Barkley ever was imo, it’s reasonably close though.

[limbo]

Eh, you can argue which player can make a bad/mediocre team stronger (aka floor lifting), but if i'm looking to build a championship team i'm taking peak Barkley. His playstyle and skillset are more compatible in a 5v5 setting and a better compliment playing alongside other superstars/allstars compared to Westbrook.

I will say that Westbrook's career is somewhat weird though. It's kinda easy to just dismiss him as a loser due to how he plays and then using his playoff record to justify this, but when you actually look at it, he has been a huge part of some really really good OKC teams as well, that were frequently robbed of having the chance to properly compete due to injuries.

2011 - Lost to champion Mavs
2012 - Lost to champion Heat
2013 - Westbrook gets injured in Playoffs
2014 - Lost to champion Spurs
2015 - Durant injured, no Playoffs
2016 - Lost to 73 Win team in a 7 game series

I can't really blame him entirely for any of these. Some of his performances were questionable, no doubt, but there were also series in that time span where Durant was underwhelming and Westbrook was the top performer on the team. Also, some of those Thunder rosters ranged from stacked to weirdly bad... Like, there were Durant, Harden, Ibaka at one time, but there was also times where it was basically just Westbrook and Durant, playing with complete dead weight like Perkins, Fisher and Caron Butler, all getting significant minutes, and they were still a strong team. I remember there were times during those years where i genuinely thought Durant and Westbrook could basically 2v5 the entire NBA en route to a championship.

Then there's the question of Westbrook inability to play with other players (especially guards) who aren't necessarily great without the ball. Looking at Reggie Jackson and Victor Oladipo's cases specifically, both players you can't shake the feeling should've contributed more with OKC, but then again, both Jackson and Oladipo had so many ups and downs in their career it's hard to quantify how much is them being inconsistent and flawed players vs. the Westbrook effect.

Finally, his last two seasons with OKC were no less confusing. After having his best season in 2017, his team improves by getting another Top 10-15 player in George, but then Westbrook actually has a worse season, they get to the Playoffs and he gets owned by Rubio... But George had an awful series too, so it's swept under the rug. Okay, maybe next year, after having one year of chemistry to work on, no Carmelo anymore chucking shots, George is playing like a Top 5 player in the RS, aaaaaand Westbrook has his worst season since his sophomore year lol. They get to the playoffs and again he gets humiliated.

As i've said. Despite all of Westbrook's flaws as a player, he does a lot of good things on the court, and when him and Durant were losing against championship teams with a relatively thin cast and injuries, i was cautious on being overly critical with Westbrook, because i could realistically imagine a scenario where just a thing or two went the other way and Westbrook would've been an NBA champion with the Thunder... But seeing how he performed just one year after his best MVP season with a better cast to boot, made me start justifying a lot of the criticism, and then he doubles down on it with a horrific 2019 season...

Now the MONSTAR version of the Warriors doesn't exist anymore, the champion Raptors lost their best player and Westbrook joined one of the best teams in the league in the last couple of years... Don't eff it up Russ.

[LKN]

I'd consider any of Barkley's 88-93 years (not saying all of them... but at least some).

I will give 2017 Westbrook credit for showing everyone why you should take OBPM/VORP with a huge grain of salt though

[E-Balla]

Eh, you can argue which player can make a bad/mediocre team stronger (aka floor lifting), but if i'm looking to build a championship team i'm taking peak Barkley. His playstyle and skillset are more compatible in a 5v5 setting and a better compliment playing alongside other superstars/allstars compared to Westbrook.

I will say that Westbrook's career is somewhat weird though. It's kinda easy to just dismiss him as a loser due to how he plays and then using his playoff record to justify this, but when you actually look at it, he has been a huge part of some really really good OKC teams as well, that were frequently robbed of having the chance to properly compete due to injuries.

2011 - Lost to champion Mavs
2012 - Lost to champion Heat
2013 - Westbrook gets injured in Playoffs
2014 - Lost to champion Spurs
2015 - Durant injured, no Playoffs
2016 - Lost to 73 Win team in a 7 game series

I can't really blame him entirely for any of these. Some of his performances were questionable, no doubt, but there were also series in that time span where Durant was underwhelming and Westbrook was the top performer on the team. Also, some of those Thunder rosters ranged from stacked to weirdly bad... Like, there were Durant, Harden, Ibaka at one time, but there was also times where it was basically just Westbrook and Durant, playing with complete dead weight like Perkins, Fisher and Caron Butler, all getting significant minutes, and they were still a strong team. I remember there were times during those years where i genuinely thought Durant and Westbrook could basically 2v5 the entire NBA en route to a championship.

Then there's the question of Westbrook inability to play with other players (especially guards) who aren't necessarily great without the ball. Looking at Reggie Jackson and Victor Oladipo's cases specifically, both players you can't shake the feeling should've contributed more with OKC, but then again, both Jackson and Oladipo had so many ups and downs in their career it's hard to quantify how much is them being inconsistent and flawed players vs. the Westbrook effect.

Finally, his last two seasons with OKC were no less confusing. After having his best season in 2017, his team improves by getting another Top 10-15 player in George, but then Westbrook actually has a worse season, they get to the Playoffs and he gets owned by Rubio... But George had an awful series too, so it's swept under the rug. Okay, maybe next year, after having one year of chemistry to work on, no Carmelo anymore chucking shots, George is playing like a Top 5 player in the RS, aaaaaand Westbrook has his worst season since his sophomore year lol. They get to the playoffs and again he gets humiliated.

As i've said. Despite all of Westbrook's flaws as a player, he does a lot of good things on the court, and when him and Durant were losing against championship teams with a relatively thin cast and injuries, i was cautious on being overly critical with Westbrook, because i could realistically imagine a scenario where just a thing or two went the other way and Westbrook would've been an NBA champion with the Thunder... But seeing how he performed just one year after his best MVP season with a better cast to boot, made me start justifying a lot of the criticism, and then he doubles down on it with a horrific 2019 season...

Now the MONSTAR version of the Warriors doesn't exist anymore, the champion Raptors lost their best player and Westbrook joined one of the best teams in the league in the last couple of years... Don't eff it up Russ.

I think you're very close to being on the mark but off. Westbrook the last 2 years lost his shot. It's hard to me to say those performances muddy up his career because he's clearly fallen off. Also Dipo clearly and drastically improved in 2018. He went viral in the offseason for finally getting into shape and his increased dedication paid off. Later he said he saw how hard Russ worked to be great and realized he wasn't putting in enough work.

[Cavsfansince84]

If my team has decent talent already I take 88-93 Barkley. I don't think WB can add that much playing a more standard pg style with other quality players. Maybe 95 and 96 also. Which isn't to say WB is trash or anything like that either. Barkley is just an atg level player and I don't think that one year where WB was basically set up for huge numbers means he was better than prime Chuck was.

[kendogg]

'88-93 I guess. That is roughly Barkley's prime. I think prime and peak Barkley are more impactful than prime/peak Westbrook, though it's an interesting comparison I suppose. They are both uber athletic for their position and relatively the same height since Westbrook is taller than his listed height and Barkley is shorter than his.

Westbrook is easily the best finishing guard of his time, though he's playing in an era with LeBron so perhaps not the best finisher overall. The same could be said for Barkley and Jordan perhaps, with the roles reversed.

I think Barkley simply has the benefit of being stronger than Westbrook and thus can use his strength to get good shots easier than Westbrook who has to rely on his slashing ability. Though Barkley also abused his ability to triple threat from the post position so much they made a rule against it (5 second back to the basket rule). He'd literally just post up dudes for 20 seconds straight. And it was effective as he warped defenses with it. That rule did not go into effect until '00, Barkley's last season.

Barkley I think is simply a better scorer than Westbrook though, and though not as great of a playmaker as Westbrook, Barkley was an elite playmaker for a PF. Clearly also the better rebounder, though also clearly had more opportunity for his position.

[Brooklyn_Ball33]

'89-'93. Possibly '88 too.

[Threetimes10]

'88-93 I guess. That is roughly Barkley's prime. I think prime and peak Barkley are more impactful than prime/peak Westbrook, though it's an interesting comparison I suppose. They are both uber athletic for their position and relatively the same height since Westbrook is taller than his listed height and Barkley is shorter than his.

Westbrook is easily the best finishing guard of his time, though he's playing in an era with LeBron so perhaps not the best finisher overall. The same could be said for Barkley and Jordan perhaps, with the roles reversed.

I think Barkley simply has the benefit of being stronger than Westbrook and thus can use his strength to get good shots easier than Westbrook who has to rely on his slashing ability. Though Barkley also abused his ability to triple threat from the post position so much they made a rule against it (5 second back to the basket rule). He'd literally just post up dudes for 20 seconds straight. And it was effective as he warped defenses with it. That rule did not go into effect until '00, Barkley's last season.

Barkley I think is simply a better scorer than Westbrook though, and though not as great of a playmaker as Westbrook, Barkley was an elite playmaker for a PF. Clearly also the better rebounder, though also clearly had more opportunity for his position.

Absolutely nothing objective suggests he's the best finisher among guards of this generation, or even any season, for that matter. There are plenty of better finishers among non-guards in the league. He is extremely good at getting to the rim, however.

[Dr Spaceman]

'88-93 I guess. That is roughly Barkley's prime. I think prime and peak Barkley are more impactful than prime/peak Westbrook, though it's an interesting comparison I suppose. They are both uber athletic for their position and relatively the same height since Westbrook is taller than his listed height and Barkley is shorter than his.

Westbrook is easily the best finishing guard of his time, though he's playing in an era with LeBron so perhaps not the best finisher overall. The same could be said for Barkley and Jordan perhaps, with the roles reversed.

I think Barkley simply has the benefit of being stronger than Westbrook and thus can use his strength to get good shots easier than Westbrook who has to rely on his slashing ability. Though Barkley also abused his ability to triple threat from the post position so much they made a rule against it (5 second back to the basket rule). He'd literally just post up dudes for 20 seconds straight. And it was effective as he warped defenses with it. That rule did not go into effect until '00, Barkley's last season.

Barkley I think is simply a better scorer than Westbrook though, and though not as great of a playmaker as Westbrook, Barkley was an elite playmaker for a PF. Clearly also the better rebounder, though also clearly had more opportunity for his position.

Absolutely nothing objective suggests he's the best finisher among guards of this generation, or even any season, for that matter. There are plenty of better finishers among non-guards in the league. He is extremely good at getting to the rim, however.

Westbrook is probably the best transition finisher of his time but in the half court he is well below elite tier and maybe below average. He doesn’t draw fouls well and in the playoffs he’s generally a 53% finisher inside of 3 feet which is objectively a train wreck and this is even while playing with Durant.

[70sFan]

'88-93 I guess. That is roughly Barkley's prime. I think prime and peak Barkley are more impactful than prime/peak Westbrook, though it's an interesting comparison I suppose. They are both uber athletic for their position and relatively the same height since Westbrook is taller than his listed height and Barkley is shorter than his.

Westbrook is easily the best finishing guard of his time, though he's playing in an era with LeBron so perhaps not the best finisher overall. The same could be said for Barkley and Jordan perhaps, with the roles reversed.

I think Barkley simply has the benefit of being stronger than Westbrook and thus can use his strength to get good shots easier than Westbrook who has to rely on his slashing ability. Though Barkley also abused his ability to triple threat from the post position so much they made a rule against it (5 second back to the basket rule). He'd literally just post up dudes for 20 seconds straight. And it was effective as he warped defenses with it. That rule did not go into effect until '00, Barkley's last season.

Barkley I think is simply a better scorer than Westbrook though, and though not as great of a playmaker as Westbrook, Barkley was an elite playmaker for a PF. Clearly also the better rebounder, though also clearly had more opportunity for his position.

Absolutely nothing objective suggests he's the best finisher among guards of this generation, or even any season, for that matter. There are plenty of better finishers among non-guards in the league. He is extremely good at getting to the rim, however.

Westbrook is probably the best transition finisher of his time but in the half court he is well below elite tier and maybe below average. He doesn’t draw fouls well and in the playoffs he’s generally a 53% finisher inside of 3 feet which is objectively a train wreck and this is even while playing with Durant.

People assume that his inefficiency is related to three point shooting, but the truth is that he's just not efficient scorer from any spot on the court. His agressiveness, athleticism and passing ability is what makes him so dangerous, but he's far from unstoppable scorer.

[kendogg]

I meant to say slashing guard not finishing guard. Not sure why I said finishing lol. He is the best at getting to the rim not necessarily the best finishing %. I think is is perfectly fair to say Westbrook is the best slasher of his era. Very similar to Iverson in his era. Best guard at getting to the rim. Not necessarily the best shooter but he has enough to keep defenses honest. Great playmakers both. Iverson just had absolutely nobody to pass to. At least Westbrook has played with some talent. Guys like that are far more valuable than their FG% suggests. Their ability to warp defenses is not so much less than guys like Curry or even Shaq.

[trex_8063]

I'd probably take '90 and '93 versions over Westbrook. That might be about it, though I think one could make a case for '88, '89, and '91, too; it's pretty close. '92 is bit of a down year within that span, so I'm comfortable saying I'd [at the very least] take '17 Westy over that version.

[Sign5]

I meant to say slashing guard not finishing guard. Not sure why I said finishing lol. He is the best at getting to the rim not necessarily the best finishing %. I think is is perfectly fair to say Westbrook is the best slasher of his era. Very similar to Iverson in his era. Best guard at getting to the rim. Not necessarily the best shooter but he has enough to keep defenses honest. Great playmakers both. Iverson just had absolutely nobody to pass to. At least Westbrook has played with some talent. Guys like that are far more valuable than their FG% suggests. Their ability to warp defenses is not so much less than guys like Curry or even Shaq.

You must have Westbrook and Wade confused.

I'd lean towards Barkley, hard to pass up all around dominant bigs.

[kendogg]

Wade, Iverson and Westbrook are all different eras in this situation, because their careers really don't overlap much. Wade is basically the version of Iverson and Westbrook that can also shoot (midrange), which is why peak Wade is on par with Jordan, Kobe and the like. Though Iverson's low FG% had as much to do with his crappy teammates as it did his stroke. He was capable of shooting a much higher percentage with other scorers on the team to give him room. Same with Westbrook. Assuming the Rockets stay healthy and in good chemistry, Westbrook's FG% should go up. It wouldn't shock me to see him shoot a career high FG% if he gets along well with Harden.

[penbeast0]

I meant to say slashing guard not finishing guard. Not sure why I said finishing lol. He is the best at getting to the rim not necessarily the best finishing %. I think is is perfectly fair to say Westbrook is the best slasher of his era. Very similar to Iverson in his era. Best guard at getting to the rim. Not necessarily the best shooter but he has enough to keep defenses honest. Great playmakers both. Iverson just had absolutely nobody to pass to. At least Westbrook has played with some talent. Guys like that are far more valuable than their FG% suggests. Their ability to warp defenses is not so much less than guys like Curry or even Shaq.

I see Iverson warping defenses, but I don't see him taking advantage of it. Not even close to a "great playmaker." Instead, he would shoot into triple teams hoping to draw a foul. Most of his assists (not all of course) come from him acting like a normal guard rather than a slash and create type like Nate Archibald. Did the players Iverson played with show a corresponding increase in ts% like Nash's teammates or Shaq's teammates? I would rate Westbrook appreciably higher than Iverson in that regard. I've been impressed with his ability to help teammates like Durant or George to outstanding seasons.

[kendogg]

I meant to say slashing guard not finishing guard. Not sure why I said finishing lol. He is the best at getting to the rim not necessarily the best finishing %. I think is is perfectly fair to say Westbrook is the best slasher of his era. Very similar to Iverson in his era. Best guard at getting to the rim. Not necessarily the best shooter but he has enough to keep defenses honest. Great playmakers both. Iverson just had absolutely nobody to pass to. At least Westbrook has played with some talent. Guys like that are far more valuable than their FG% suggests. Their ability to warp defenses is not so much less than guys like Curry or even Shaq.

I see Iverson warping defenses, but I don't see him taking advantage of it. Not even close to a "great playmaker." Instead, he would shoot into triple teams hoping to draw a foul. Most of his assists (not all of course) come from him acting like a normal guard rather than a slash and create type like Nate Archibald. Did the players Iverson played with show a corresponding increase in ts% like Nash's teammates or Shaq's teammates? I would rate Westbrook appreciably higher than Iverson in that regard. I've been impressed with his ability to help teammates like Durant or George to outstanding seasons.

Those Sixer teams were terribly constructed. Unathletic bigs that can't run the floor with Iverson or properly finish like a Capela or even Adams, and perimeter players that can't shoot. It was a total disaster, yet Iverson still managed to steal a game off one of the greatest teams of all time in the finals.

[Dr Positivity]

Wade, Iverson and Westbrook are all different eras in this situation, because their careers really don't overlap much. Wade is basically the version of Iverson and Westbrook that can also shoot (midrange), which is why peak Wade is on par with Jordan, Kobe and the like. Though Iverson's low FG% had as much to do with his crappy teammates as it did his stroke. He was capable of shooting a much higher percentage with other scorers on the team to give him room. Same with Westbrook. Assuming the Rockets stay healthy and in good chemistry, Westbrook's FG% should go up. It wouldn't shock me to see him shoot a career high FG% if he gets along well with Harden.

I disagree with this as I don't have a big problem with Westbrook (until the last two years) and Iverson's midrange jumpshooting talent. I could see the argument Iverson is actually more talented shooter than Wade. He was used moving without the ball the most of the three I believe, in part due to era as teams didn't just put in PNR ballhandlers and space the floor for him as much as they do now. In 2001 Iverson was assisted on 48.3% of his shots from 16-23 ft and 76.7% of his shots from 3. In 2006 Wade was assisted on 26.0% of his shots from 16-23 and 66.7% from 3. In 2017 Westbrook was assisted on 13.5% of his shots from 16-23 feet and 34.3% from 3. In 2019 Harden was assisted on .071% of his (39 total lol) shots from 16-23 feet and 15.7% of his shots from 3.

For me the difference between Wade and AI/Westbrook is ego. Westbrook and AI are chuckers. Wade is like a smaller Lebron in terms of his approach to the game. Westbrook is like if Wade had a brain injury from a motorcycle accident.

[Baski]

88-93

[og15]

I meant to say slashing guard not finishing guard. Not sure why I said finishing lol. He is the best at getting to the rim not necessarily the best finishing %. I think is is perfectly fair to say Westbrook is the best slasher of his era. Very similar to Iverson in his era. Best guard at getting to the rim. Not necessarily the best shooter but he has enough to keep defenses honest. Great playmakers both. Iverson just had absolutely nobody to pass to. At least Westbrook has played with some talent. Guys like that are far more valuable than their FG% suggests. Their ability to warp defenses is not so much less than guys like Curry or even Shaq.

I see Iverson warping defenses, but I don't see him taking advantage of it. Not even close to a "great playmaker." Instead, he would shoot into triple teams hoping to draw a foul. Most of his assists (not all of course) come from him acting like a normal guard rather than a slash and create type like Nate Archibald. Did the players Iverson played with show a corresponding increase in ts% like Nash's teammates or Shaq's teammates? I would rate Westbrook appreciably higher than Iverson in that regard. I've been impressed with his ability to help teammates like Durant or George to outstanding seasons.

Those Sixer teams were terribly constructed. Unathletic bigs that can't run the floor with Iverson or properly finish like a Capela or even Adams, and perimeter players that can't shoot. It was a total disaster, yet Iverson still managed to steal a game off one of the greatest teams of all time in the finals.

Yea, EC teams in that early 2000's span were a train wreck compared to the WC and also later years when it came to team building. Actually most teams were rolling out unatheltic plodding bigs because that was what teams did and they wanted to guard a guy like Shaq.

Look at the Raptors team that took the Sixers to 7 games, same type of roster build, lane clogging big men, a PG with no outside shot, and a team based on one scorer. The Bucks had more offense, but no defense, just no reall overall well built teams, glad that span died quickly.