RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #44 (Russell Westbrook)

[DQuinn1575]

Copy from last one-
Sam Jones was the leading scorer for the NBA champion for multiple years. His performance in the Finals would have made him a strong conten
der for Finals MVP in 3 years.
A strong playoff performer, he fared relatively well against two of the all-time greats, West and Oscar, in 62-66 - he scored 24 pts per 36 mpg versus their 25.5, with fg% of
47.5 vs their 45.9, and a TS % of 53.1 vs 55.2. Overall he was probably the second most impactful player of the greatest dynasty. Table is below.

Cowens - best player on a couple of championship teams - high peak as his rebounding, defense, scoring etc. led best team in mid 70s

Westbrook - not positive I like him as 3rd best, going with the stats.

My order for guys in case it goes to that would be Reed, Billups, McHale



g mp fg fga ft fta reb ast pf pts fg% pts/36 ts % reb/36
62 Jones BOS 7 247 68 134 19 26 42 21 18 155 0.507 22.6 0.537
62 West LAL 7 309 73 160 72 85 35 19 25 218 0.456 25.4 0.562
63 Jones BOS 7 218 63 122 35 44 37 17 27 161 0.516 26.6 0.577
63 Oscar Cin 7 327 80 165 74 83 87 60 22 234 0.485 25.8 0.590
63 Jones BOS 6 232 57 126 34 39 44 19 15 148 0.452 23.0 0.523
63 West LAL 6 264 76 155 25 33 41 27 11 177 0.490 24.1 0.526
64 Jones BOS 5 196 51 108 24 31 25 9 14 126 0.472 23.1 0.523
64 Oscar Cin 5 235 47 118 47 55 48 28 12 141 0.398 21.6 0.504
65 Jones BOS 5 199 55 117 29 33 24 13 14 129 0.470 23.3 0.495
65 West LAL 5 210 59 139 51 59 28 17 13 169 0.424 29.0 0.520
66 Jones BOS 5 177 53 104 27 35 15 10 18 133 0.510 27.1 0.564
66 Oscar Cin 5 224 49 120 61 68 38 39 20 159 0.408 25.6 0.540
66 Jones BOS 7 249 56 138 48 54 45 23 29 160 0.406 23.1 0.501
66 West LAL 7 317 88 171 61 70 45 36 20 237 0.515 26.9 0.595

Jones 42 1518 403 849 216 262 232 112 135 1012 0.475 24.0 0.531 5.5
West/Oscar 42 1886 472 1028 391 453 322 226 123 1335 0.459 25.5 0.552 6.1


* 84 3404 875 1877 607 715 554 338 258 2347




1. Jones
2. Cowens
3. Westbrook

[Cavsfansince84]

I wonder how much weight should I put into Manu's less minutes vs Paul Pierce, Reed and Pau Gasol. How do you guys feel about that?

Is Paul Pierce at the same level of Manu but more useful cause of much more minutes? Or was Ginobili really much better and super elite when he was on the court?

I see Manu's lack of minutes per game as somewhat large when comparing him to a lot of other guys in this range. I think it sort of pumped up his rate metrics as well. Because at the end of the day he only played over 28mpg 5 times and so he wasn't carrying the same burden that guys who played 35-40 mpg were. I think I'll have Manu in the 50-55 range right now.

[DQuinn1575]

I wonder how much weight should I put into Manu's less minutes vs Paul Pierce, Reed and Pau Gasol. How do you guys feel about that?

Is Paul Pierce at the same level of Manu but more useful cause of much more minutes? Or was Ginobili really much better and super elite when he was on the court?

I see Manu's lack of minutes per game as somewhat large when comparing him to a lot of other guys in this range. I think it sort of pumped up his rate metrics as well. Because at the end of the day he only played over 28mpg 5 times and so he wasn't carrying the same burden that guys who played 35-40 mpg were. I think I'll have Manu in the 50-55 range right now.

Manu playing much less minutes means a lesser player is playing more (obviously). Would you rather have 38 minutes of Paul Pierce and 10 minutes of an 8th man (or whatever) or 28 minutes of Manu and 20 minutes of the same guy. For me its not really that close, and Ginobili is someone who will be on the list of guys who get rated well before I start considering him.

[LA Bird]

1. Russell Westbrook
2. Paul Pierce
3. Dikembe Mutombo

It doesn't seem like Pierce is getting any traction yet so I will move Westbrook to #1 for now

Westbrook - His rapid decline in recent seasons have soured his reputation and his triple doubles have declined in value because they have kind of lost their novelty after he had so many of them. But even if we ignore his somewhat controversial rebounds, he is still a really good player. Westbrook is the only player in history with two scoring titles and two assist titles and his 2017 season had one of the highest scoring per possession rates and assist % of all time simultaneously. He is often seen as a floor raiser like Iverson who can't fit on a high level team because of his high volume but the 2016 OKC Thunder was a ~10 SRS team when healthy and Westbrook was 1a/1b with Durant that year. Going back to the 2014 playoffs, Westbrook was arguably better than Durant over that final two year stretch. He is solid in RAPM and WOWY and his box score stats at his peak were so good he single handledly forced basketball reference to revamp their BPM formula just to knock him down.

Pierce - Solid all around skillet and one of the top impact players in both 15 year RAPM and prime/career WOWY. A great scorer who, like the other 00s guys, kind of get underrated historically for playing in the slowest era in post shot clock NBA. For example, if we compare the top scoring seasons between Pierce and Drexler,

Top PPG adjusted to 100 pace team
Pierce: 29.1, 28.5, 28.2, 27.3
Drexler: 26.2, 26.1, 25.3, 22.8

Mutombo - IMO the third best defensive player of all time. Absolutely dominated defensive +/- in the late 90s and remained a top defender in his post prime years. Good longevity despite being a 25 year old rookie. Howard peaked higher but his post Orlando years aren't very impactful.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Willis Reed
Vote 2 - Gary Payton
Vote 3 - Ray Allen

On their way to the championship in 1970, willis helped the knicks knock off 2 of the most dominant centers of all time in wilt and kareem. Undersized for a center at 6’9”, his brute strength and good defensive instincts were still able to deter them. He also had a great outside shot for a big man, which was very effective against wilt in his later years. He would again get the best of wilt in 73 when the knicks took down the lakers in the finals.

I don’t have a problem with questioning his 2 finals MVPs relative to Clyde’s level of play in those series. However, I don’t doubt that reed was a player whose impact went beyond the box score, and I’d say that’s what voters were recognizing when selecting him as finals MVP in both seasons. This was best exemplified in the famous moment when reed came through the tunnel in game 7 of the 70 finals:

Watch on YouTube

As the lakers were warming up, they froze as they saw willis coming onto the court (he had previously missed game 6 with a torn muscle in his thigh, and no one expected him to play). He hit his first 2 jumpers, and the rest was history. Dramatic narrative? Of course, but Clyde himself said they wouldn’t have had the confidence to go out there and perform like they did without their captain leading the way. When you have the talent to back it up as willis did, that makes a difference.

He was certainly deserving of winning reg season MVP in 1970, leading the knicks to a 60-22 record and the #1 ranked SRS in the league. He put together season averages of 21.7 PPG, 13.9 RPG, 2 APG, 50.7 FG, 75.6% FT, 55.2% TS, +4.1 rTS.

From 69-73, reed would anchor a knicks defense that ranked in the top 3rd of the league for 4 seasons:

69 - 4th
70 - 1st
71 - 2nd
73 - 4th

The season after reed retired, the knicks dropped to 11th (of 18) in DRtg. His impact on that end of the floor was clear, as was the ability to lead a group of players to what’s often considered one of the best stretches of “team play” in NBA history.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #25:

Chauncey Billups - 2 (Joao Saraiva, penbeast0)
Kevin McHale - 2 (freethedevil, Hal14)
Russell Westbrook - 2 (LA Bird, Odinn21)
Willis Reed - 2 (Clyde Frazier, Dutchball97)
Pau Gasol - 1 (trex_8063)
Sam Jones - 1 (DQuinn1575)


Well this is a dilly of a pickle. 10 votes requires 6 for a majority. We'll eliminate Gasol and Jones, which transfers two votes to Westbrook....

Westbrook - 4
Reed - 2
Billups - 2
McHale - 2

Next step would remove all of the bottom three and Westbrook would be a default winner. But we have to verify via Condorcet, so if all voters listed above who beat the deadline could please get back to me either itt or via PM with their preferred order among these FOUR candidates (Dutchball97, I already have your order).

For the record, I am going Westbrook > McHale > Billups > Reed.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[penbeast0]

Billups, McHale, Westbrook, Reed . . .

[Doctor MJ]

Vote:

1. Ray Allen
2. Kevin McHale
3. Willis Reed

Billups after that.

So, I'm voting for my next guy and then just choosing from the list of people not in contention.

Allen's the next best thing to Miller, and he's shown himself working in more different roles than Miller. That probably isn't that great of an argument given that people who are sold on Miller probably aren't far from voting for Allen, but I think it's just worth keeping in mind that we're talking about a guy known for a role that's insanely effective that very few guys have complete careers of.

To put it in perspective: Allen's basically only the 3rd of these guys getting consideration, and he's playing a role that basically every team right now should have someone playing, but they really don't even now. It's a bit like if we were in spot 44 and we only had 2 centers in so far.

I'm sure that will hit people as an absurd statement, and on one level it is, because we're effectively talking about a new position, and thus we shouldn't expect there to be 20% of the all-time greats that filled the role. But guys like this are more special than I think people understand.

McHale is an outlier talent as a post-scorer and a great defender. Longevity isn't amazing and I can see arguments for others above him, but the others in consideration here have more issues.

I'm torn about McHale vs Reed and could end up switching if both are around after this, but obviously Reed has similar longevity issues (I'd actually vote Wes Unseld before Reed).

I'll take Billups with the next spot by reasoning of "You can win with him."

Westbrook? Eh, well I'm way lower on him than some of y'all.

I think folks need to understand that if you care about a guy who can play effectively on most champions, Westbrook isn't your guy. He's someone who can't shoot, doesn't adapt easily, and doesn't think with a great global awareness on the court ever. There is a reason why he's bouncing from team to team at an age that should be in the middle of his prime.

I'm biased here a bit because I saw him play at UCLA, back when he was DPOY for the Conference and had to play off of other superior decision makers (Kevin Love, Darren Collison), and was a better team player. I know how he could have been groomed to be a great non-volume scorer on a champion team, and I know that we haven't seen that in the pros. And it's not hard to see how this has everything to do with why OKC ended up losing out on what may be there best chance to ever win a title. Should've been smarter with Westbrook back when he could still learn.

[trex_8063]

I haven't heard from everyone, but going thru it I find that I do know enough....

As per rules when validating a default winner via Condorcet, we established that the default winner does not necessarily have to beat EACH of the other finalists via Condorcet.....he merely cannot lose to any of them.
Of the original 10 voters I've heard from [or can tell from their votes], the tally is thus:

Westbrook leads McHale 5-3
Westbrook leads Reed 6-3
Westbrook leads Billups 6-2

So he's already guaranteed to defeat Reed and Billups, and the worst possible outcome for him vs McHale is a tie. So will call this one for Westbrook and get the next up....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[freethedevil]

Vote:

1. Ray Allen
2. Kevin McHale
3. Willis Reed

Billups after that.

So, I'm voting for my next guy and then just choosing from the list of people not in contention.

Allen's the next best thing to Miller, and he's shown himself working in more different roles than Miller. That probably isn't that great of an argument given that people who are sold on Miller probably aren't far from voting for Allen, but I think it's just worth keeping in mind that we're talking about a guy known for a role that's insanely effective that very few guys have complete careers of.

To put it in perspective: Allen's basically only the 3rd of these guys getting consideration, and he's playing a role that basically every team right now should have someone playing, but they really don't even now. It's a bit like if we were in spot 44 and we only had 2 centers in so far.

I'm sure that will hit people as an absurd statement, and on one level it is, because we're effectively talking about a new position, and thus we shouldn't expect there to be 20% of the all-time greats that filled the role. But guys like this are more special than I think people understand.

McHale is an outlier talent as a post-scorer and a great defender. Longevity isn't amazing and I can see arguments for others above him, but the others in consideration here have more issues.

I'm torn about McHale vs Reed and could end up switching if both are around after this, but obviously Reed has similar longevity issues (I'd actually vote Wes Unseld before Reed).

I'll take Billups with the next spot by reasoning of "You can win with him."

Westbrook? Eh, well I'm way lower on him than some of y'all.

I think folks need to understand that if you care about a guy who can play effectively on most champions, Westbrook isn't your guy. He's someone who can't shoot, doesn't adapt easily, and doesn't think with a great global awareness on the court ever. There is a reason why he's bouncing from team to team at an age that should be in the middle of his prime.

I'm biased here a bit because I saw him play at UCLA, back when he was DPOY for the Conference and had to play off of other superior decision makers (Kevin Love, Darren Collison), and was a better team player. I know how he could have been groomed to be a great non-volume scorer on a champion team, and I know that we haven't seen that in the pros. And it's not hard to see how this has everything to do with why OKC ended up losing out on what may be there best chance to ever win a title. Should've been smarter with Westbrook back when he could still learn.

You mean like when he was arguably the most valuable piece of a team that played 65 win basketball and smashed a 70 win spurs team despite having
-> **** spacing
-> teammates who couldn't move off the ball

Mind you that was before westbrook developed a respetable catch and shoot threat.

Why in the world would westbrook, who was able to co-lead a title-level(posing bigger impact than anyone you listed) team without any spacing or system somehow struggle on most champions which
A. tend to have better spacing relative to the rest of the league
B. Better off-ball movement realtive to the rest of the league.

The idea that a strong interior threat with atg passing wouldn't be able to be valuable on title level teams is honestly just baffling to me.

[Doctor MJ]

hat a strong interior threat with atg passing wouldn't be able to be valuable on title level teams is honestly just baffling to me.

The idea that anyone thinks Westbrook has all-time great level passing is baffling to me. Part of being a top tier passer is knowing when not to shoot.

[penbeast0]

hat a strong interior threat with atg passing wouldn't be able to be valuable on title level teams is honestly just baffling to me.

The idea that anyone thinks Westbrook has all-time great level passing is baffling to me. Part of being a top tier passer is knowing when not to shoot.

And avoiding stupid passes, something Westbrook hasn't learned yet. He still has more WOW! and more WTFwereyouthinking! moments than anyone in the league. His type of player (high usage, high volume, ball dominant, inefficient) is generally considered more a floor raiser than a ceiling raiser. I would love to hear the argument why Westbrook is the exception to this general rule or are you generally a fan of those type of players who tend to be rated lower on this board than by the general public (Westbrook, Iverson, Isiah, Maravich, Cousy, etc.).

[Odinn21]

hat a strong interior threat with atg passing wouldn't be able to be valuable on title level teams is honestly just baffling to me.

The idea that anyone thinks Westbrook has all-time great level passing is baffling to me. Part of being a top tier passer is knowing when not to shoot.

And avoiding stupid passes, something Westbrook hasn't learned yet. He still has more WOW! and more WTFwereyouthinking! moments than anyone in the league. His type of player (high usage, high volume, ball dominant, inefficient) is generally considered more a floor raiser than a ceiling raiser. I would love to hear the argument why Westbrook is the exception to this general rule or are you generally a fan of those type of players who tend to be rated lower on this board than by the general public (Westbrook, Iverson, Isiah, Maravich, Cousy, etc.).

Westbrook was still pretty impactful.

I always look at impact numbers with box numbers, minutes played and on ball production in mind because a player can be less impactful if they try to do more and can be more impactful if they try to do less which is your point. But you don't give enough credit to Westbrook's overall impact.
Mentioning Maravich next to Westbrook is kind of an insult to Westbrook.

Here;
http://nbashotcharts.com/rapm5?id=-505002254
5 year RAPM numbers. Westbrook is in the same percentile (top 1%) as Durant. If we consider minutes played, Durant is 5th and Westbrook is 6th highest on there.
Westbrook is not an exception to that general rule because he's not in the sample. He's not even an exception. He was clearly a positive impact player in his prime.

It was obvious that his game wouldn't age well. But I never see the point of downplaying his impact in his prime by looking at him now.

Edit;

Any idea on the VORP% of KD/Westbrook for just the 2016 Spurs/Warriors series?

Against the Spurs;
Westbrook 7.08 BPM, 6.96 VORP, 6.64 OBPM
Durant 6.06 BPM, 6.87 VORP, 5.85 OBPM

Against the Warriors;
Westbrook 9.65 BPM, 9.49 VORP, 6.45 OBPM
Durant 5.77 BPM, 6.68 VORP, 4.73 OBPM

Combined;
Westbrook 8.50 BPM, 8.32 VORP, 6.54 OBPM
Durant 5.90 BPM, 6.77 VORP, 5.24 OBPM

VORP is a cumulative stat but before it becomes cumulative later in the process, it has an element to consider number of games and basically mpg. That's why Durant's VORP doesn't add up to 13.55.
Also, Durant played nearly 40 minutes more than Westbrook over those 13 games. It helps his numbers a bit.

I didn't calculate for the entire team but between the two, their VORP share are; Westbrook 55.16% and Durant 44.84%.

[freethedevil]

hat a strong interior threat with atg passing wouldn't be able to be valuable on title level teams is honestly just baffling to me.

The idea that anyone thinks Westbrook has all-time great level passing is baffling to me. Part of being a top tier passer is knowing when not to shoot.

Ah yes, let's double penalize westbrook for hitting his shot slelection as a scorer and creator. I guess if you play double jepoardy then you have a reason to completely disregard the rather effective results in um........not ideal circumstances.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2016-nba-western-conference-semifinals-thunder-vs-spurs.html
2016, you might remember this as the playoff. where the thunder's best shototer kd, shot worse from thee than westbrook did on similar volume.

The spurs, an amazing defense, and amazing team overall, decided they would focus on westbrook's scoring, literally building a wall to stop westbrook. Now look at westbrook's ast to to percentage keeping in mind. "AH BUT STAT-padding ball dominance" you say. Okay, now look at everyone else's effiency. Wait but it gets even better, look at how they shot from three. 31% Westbrook, who apparently can't fit on a champion asssited 53% of his teamamtes shots, had 8% of the turnovers, with the brunt of the defensive attention as his team decisively took out a 70 win juggernaut, prettu much dominating them over the last three games.

"the story of one series" you say. Alright, fine, lets go see what happened in the next series where he choked:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2016-nba-western-conference-semifinals-thunder-vs-spurs.html
50% assist, 14% tov against the warriors while shooting what 3% worse than durant did? They took those warriors, the best 5 year playoff defense of the 10's, to 7 despite the thunder only shooting 32% from 3.

"the story of one season" you say. Fine.

2014 vs the spurs, yes the bueatiful game spurs. The tika taka of basketball. The team that had the _third highest margin of victory_ over a playoffs, westbrook is coming off an injury and is getting doubled every time he drives
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/OKC/2014.html
38% assist percentage to 13% turnovers, _shoots better_ than durant does. In case you're wondering, the spurs shot 40% from 3, the thunder shot 30% and the thunder almost forced a game 7 anyway, against one of the greatest teams ever.

(btw he managed30% on 8% tov in 2012 vs the heat)

Now, from what I know, you're a peak guy, but even if you weren't westbrook's longetivty is comparable to people you've put over him. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you dont' have any of those players peaking nealry as high as durant did.

So...lets look at durant vs westbrook. From 14-16, they faced three not okay, not decent, not very good, but three _great teams_. Westbrook faced more defensive attention in two of those series and faced d comaprable attention int he first. Westbrook seems to have clearly outplayed durant over these series, at least going off the boxscore(and going off the film really just makes it hard to argue durant was better in the 16 spurs win, given durant's effiency isn't off his shooting, but off him essnetially driving in single coverage because the spurs insist on sending three men against westbrook). The thunder badly over these three series and yet 'floor raiser' westbrook is leading his team to
A. hard fought series against one of the greatest teams ever
B. A decisive, not as close as it looks, win against a team that played 70 win basketball at full strength,
C. A razor thin 7 game loss to the 2016 warriors that quite possibly could have possibly walked the finals against a very good cavs team had it not been for a suspension for their second best player.

"Sample size" you say. Fine.

Three Year Playoffs:
Westbrook has one +6 stretch, and multiple +5's. Go look at harden, then go look at durant.

Regular season:
Pipm says westbrook was more valuable than durant in 16 and 17, RPM says durant was a bit more valuable.

That first 2016 season ws on a team that was +10 at full strength.

Finally, --this is not-- in ideal circumstances. This is a drive and kick player acheiving such results without shooting, without off-ball movement, and you're seriously trying to tell me you think "westbrook wouldn't be valuable to most champions"?


OFF THE COURT
Wait, no I'm not done. You put butler in you top 10 largely on the basis of _off court_ value. Now lets look at Westbrook. Westbrook by all counts is a beloved teammate and was loyal enough to give away his prime on the thunder deespite clearly establishing( as i've just shown) that he's incredibly valuable if you're trying to beat great teams.

"But tangible value" you say. Well, the thunder currently has a boatload of picks, a talented young core and...has been able to do this while playing good basketball. Why? Becase they traded westbrook(who had every reason to leave them after durant left him for dead) and Paul George(who specifcallysgned a multi-year contract because of how much he liked westbrook(george's words not mine).

Not only did westbrook prove massively valuable for a team playing at a increidbly high level, not only was he valuable to one of the most consistent teams of the decade, not only did he by all measures elevate as a playoff performer, and not only do this all within a scheme that clearly didn't optimize him......he was able to secure that team a bright future by the powe of both his charisma as a teammate and his loyalty as an employee.

"Westbrook wouldnt be valuable on most champions" is a lazy, lazy take. I'm not sure how the real westbrook stacks up to the one you wanted to see, but the real westbrook has proven repeatedly he was good enough to win championships.

[freethedevil]

hat a strong interior threat with atg passing wouldn't be able to be valuable on title level teams is honestly just baffling to me.

The idea that anyone thinks Westbrook has all-time great level passing is baffling to me. Part of being a top tier passer is knowing when not to shoot.

And avoiding stupid passes, something Westbrook hasn't learned yet. He still has more WOW! and more WTFwereyouthinking! moments than anyone in the league. His type of player (high usage, high volume, ball dominant, inefficient) is generally considered more a floor raiser than a ceiling raiser. I would love to hear the argument why Westbrook is the exception to this general rule or are you generally a fan of those type of players who tend to be rated lower on this board than by the general public (Westbrook, Iverson, Isiah, Maravich, Cousy, etc.).

Ah yes, westbrook, the floor raiser. Because being more effecient than durant against three of the greatest teams ever makes you allen "my crowning achievement is getting outclassed by a outmatched ray allen" iverson.

One of the most impactful regular season players ever. More valuable in the postseason, a key piece for one of the most conssitent teams of the decade, arguably --the best piece-- when that team cresencdoed into a juggernaut killing powerhouse, but you're right westbrook is allen iverson lmao.