Russell Westbrook is getting a bad wrap

[Stalwart]

Russell Westbrook has well known flaws and deficiencies to his to his game none of which I am going to try and defend. It is true that he lacks BBIQ, is turnover prone, and has a broken jumpshot at times. As true those things may be it is also true that his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses. Despite being maligned by the media and scapegoated for Kevin Durant and now Lebron James careers his track record in the NBA is actually one of consistent team success against some of the best players and best teams of all time. aa

Westbrook is increasingly being labeled as a guy you can't win with but when you look at his career that's not actually true. As the 1B to Kevin Durant he was able to make it all the way to the NBA Finals plowing through the Mavericks, Lakers, and the Spurs. The Thunder would come up short in 2013 due to injuries and in 2014 they lost to a legendary Spurs team in the Conf. Finals. In 2016 he and Kevin Durant were able to once again make the Conference Finals and went up 3-1 against the greatest RS team of all time. In the post Kevin Durant years Westbrook as able to lead some rather unimpressive Thunder rosters to 3 consecutive 47+ Win regular seasons and playoff appearances in a stacked Western Conference. Then as a Houston Rocket he was able to once again help lead his team to a respectable record and playoff appearance alongside James Harden.

Sure, Westbrook has yet to win a NBA championship but this is not the resume of a career loser or someone who holds your team back. This is the track record of one of the fiercest and toughest competitors of all time. The best players and best teams of this era were all pushed to their limit at one time or another by a Russell Westbrook team.

He also gets labeled as a terrible teammate that superstars are almost punished by having to play with. Yet, the fact of the matter is that Kevin Durant, Paul George, and Bradley Beal all had their best individual seasons playing alongside Westbrook. James Harden was a top 3 MVP candidate in 2020 and Lebron his having one of his best offensive seasons next to WB. Once again this is not the resume of a terrible teammate. This is someone who always elevates his superstar teammates.

So yeah, Westbrook is getting a bad wrap. He's not a career loser nor is he a terrible teammate. The reason he and Kevin Durant never won a title was because they ran up against 3 legendary teams during their run: 12 Heat, 14 Spurs, and 16 Warriors. They performed valiantly against all of those teams and just came up short. They also lost a couple of seasons due to injuries. I personally think the Thunder could have came back in 2017 and won it all had Durant not given up.

[Sedale Threatt]

I counted myself as a casual Westbrook fan up until this season. At least, I never had major issues with him like a lot of other people do. But now that I'm actually invested, I just cannot stand watching him play, to an extent I've rarely experienced in 35 years as an NBA fan. He's easily one of the dumbest, least fundamental players we've ever had in a Lakers uniform, and that pretty much ruins the experience.

[TroubleS0me]

Russell Westbrook has well known flaws and deficiencies to his to his game none of which I am going to try and defend. It is true that he lacks BBIQ, is turnover prone, and has a broken jumpshot at times. As true those things may be it is also true that his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses. Despite being maligned by the media and scapegoated for Kevin Durant and now Lebron James careers his track record in the NBA is actually one of consistent team success against some of the best players and best teams of all time. aa

Westbrook is increasingly being labeled as a guy you can't win with but when you look at his career that's not actually true. As the 1B to Kevin Durant he was able to make it all the way to the NBA Finals plowing through the Mavericks, Lakers, and the Spurs. The Thunder would come up short in 2013 due to injuries and in 2014 they lost to a legendary Spurs team in the Conf. Finals. In 2016 he and Kevin Durant were able to once again make the Conference Finals and went up 3-1 against the greatest RS team of all time. In the post Kevin Durant years Westbrook as able to lead some rather unimpressive Thunder rosters to 3 consecutive 47+ Win regular seasons and playoff appearances in a stacked Western Conference. Then as a Houston Rocket he was able to once again help lead his team to a respectable record and playoff appearance alongside James Harden.

Sure, Westbrook has yet to win a NBA championship but this is not the resume of a career loser or someone who holds your team back. This is the track record of one of the fiercest and toughest competitors of all time. The best players and best teams of this era were all pushed to their limit at one time or another by a Russell Westbrook team.

He also gets labeled as a terrible teammate that superstars are almost punished by having to play with. Yet, the fact of the matter is that Kevin Durant, Paul George, and Bradley Beal all had their best individual seasons playing alongside Westbrook. James Harden was a top 3 MVP candidate in 2020 and Lebron his having one of his best offensive seasons next to WB. Once again this is not the resume of a terrible teammate. This is someone who always elevates his superstar teammates.

So yeah, Westbrook is getting a bad wrap. He's not a career loser nor is he a terrible teammate. The reason he and Kevin Durant never won a title was because they ran up against 3 legendary teams during their run: 12 Heat, 14 Spurs, and 16 Warriors. They performed valiantly against all of those teams and just came up short. They also lost a couple of seasons due to injuries. I personally think the Thunder could have came back in 2017 and won it all had Durant not given up.

Westbrook was not 1B that season he was clearly behind KD & theres an argument for Harden as #2

[TroubleS0me]

Westbrook so far this season has been all over the place. Up & down. In January he cut down on his TOs but efficiency was down. In December his efficiency was up but his turnovers were high. @ this point in his career these things should have been taken care of.

[70sFan]

I agree that we shouldn't project current Westbrook form on his prime version and people recently do it a lot. That's not fair, Westbrook was very good basketball player at his best, clearly and all-nba level guard. I was always lower on him than most, but I'd never call him a "cancer" or anything like that. It's true that he showed you can win a lot with him next to KD.

That said, it doesn't change the fact that he's been horrible recently. In last few years, you can't find many (if any) players as bad as him with his usage and role on offensive end.

[Colbinii]

Thanks for the effort in your post--its a nice change of pace from shorter, less nuanced posts.

I have never been a huge believe of Westbrook-ball [We can call it that, right? It's certainly more cancerous than anything resembling the common LeBron Ball thrown around here]. The idea of one player doing everything offensively, while not having a good shot selection and not being a great passer and not being in the upper echelon of Basketball IQ is simply not a great recipe for success.

The more we are learning about Westbrook is resulting in me souring on him even more than I have in the past. Inability to add different skills over his career while complete disregard to being able to fundamentally adapt or change given a certain roster construction simply isn't something I value--in fact it has negative value.

Westbrook, unlike many other ball dominant players is a 0 in terms of portability and scalability. He doesn't change how he plays based on his teammates. He only plays one way, and it forces other players to fit around him--but then Westbrook doesn't even know how to maximize the players around him.

[Im Your Father]

Westbrook has also never been a good shooter, but still used to be much better than he is now. He also used to be able to actually hit his free throws.

[Stalwart]

Thanks for the effort in your post--its a nice change of pace from shorter, less nuanced posts.

I have never been a huge believe of Westbrook-ball [We can call it that, right? It's certainly more cancerous than anything resembling the common LeBron Ball thrown around here]. The idea of one player doing everything offensively, while not having a good shot selection and not being a great passer and not being in the upper echelon of Basketball IQ is simply not a great recipe for success.

The more we are learning about Westbrook is resulting in me souring on him even more than I have in the past. Inability to add different skills over his career while complete disregard to being able to fundamentally adapt or change given a certain roster construction simply isn't something I value--in fact it has negative value.

Westbrook, unlike many other ball dominant players is a 0 in terms of portability and scalability. He doesn't change how he plays based on his teammates. He only plays one way, and it forces other players to fit around him--but then Westbrook doesn't even know how to maximize the players around him.

You did a great job of listing his weaknesses and flaws none of which I am going to disagree with. But isn't it true that over the course of his career his strengths have far outweighed his weaknesses and the results have been consistently good? Weren't the OKC Thunder one of the top teams in the league every single year he and Durant were there? Didn't his teams perform valiantly against some of the greatest teams and players of all time? In the post Durant years wasn't he able to lead his team to close to 50 wins 3 years in a row?

That's why I don't like these new narratives about souring on Westbrook like he's been exposed or something. He's simply getting older and as his strengths diminish his weaknesses are becoming more prominent. But none of that takes away from the results on the court. None of those weaknesses and flaws that you mentioned held him or his team back from being one of the best in the league for a solid 6-8 years.

So with a player like Westbrook the question becomes do we judge him based on our personal philosophy regarding his style of play. Or do we judge him based on what he was able to do with that style of play? I think we should judge him based on his results more than our personal philosophy on what we think makes a great player.

[Colbinii]

Thanks for the effort in your post--its a nice change of pace from shorter, less nuanced posts.

I have never been a huge believe of Westbrook-ball [We can call it that, right? It's certainly more cancerous than anything resembling the common LeBron Ball thrown around here]. The idea of one player doing everything offensively, while not having a good shot selection and not being a great passer and not being in the upper echelon of Basketball IQ is simply not a great recipe for success.

The more we are learning about Westbrook is resulting in me souring on him even more than I have in the past. Inability to add different skills over his career while complete disregard to being able to fundamentally adapt or change given a certain roster construction simply isn't something I value--in fact it has negative value.

Westbrook, unlike many other ball dominant players is a 0 in terms of portability and scalability. He doesn't change how he plays based on his teammates. He only plays one way, and it forces other players to fit around him--but then Westbrook doesn't even know how to maximize the players around him.

You did a great job of listing his weaknesses and flaws none of which I am going to disagree with. But isn't it true that over the course of his career his strengths have far outweighed his weaknesses and the results have been consistently good? Weren't the OKC Thunder one of the top teams in the league every single year he and Durant were there? Didn't his teams perform valiantly against some of the greatest teams and players of all time? In the post Durant years wasn't he able to lead his team to close to 50 wins 3 years in a row?

I agree his results have been consistently good in a vacuum--but were they great? Could they have been better?

Do we see a stronger correlation to Durant being routinely on not just good teams but great teams--title contenders year in and year out--or Westbrook's squads?

Westbrook post-Durant, in OKC, is impressive but the plan was "Let Westbrook do anything and everything he wanted and force the other players to figure out what to do"...and then the team realized the ceiling of a Westbrook-led team is a 1st round exit, even with Paul George.

That's why I don't like these new narratives about souring on Westbrook like he's been exposed or something. He's simply getting older and as his strengths diminish his weaknesses are becoming more prominent. But none of that takes away from the results on the court. None of those weaknesses and flaws that you mentioned held him or his team back from being one of the best in the league for a solid 6-8 years.

Sure, Westbrook was a top 10-15 player for likely a 5-7 year stretch, which is a nice career, but not a top 50 player--maybe not even top 75 player of all-time.

So with a player like Westbrook the question becomes do we judge him based on our personal philosophy regarding his style of play. Or do we judge him based on what he was able to do with that style of play? I think we should judge him based on his results more than our personal philosophy on what we think makes a great player.

I judge him based on how his skill-set translates into winning championships and producing championship odds.

[70sFan]

For all my positive talk though, Westbrook wouldn't touch my top 10 PG list ever. He's been underrated recently, but he's still historically overrated.

[Stalwart]

I agree his results have been consistently good in a vacuum--but were they great? Could they have been better?

Do we see a stronger correlation to Durant being routinely on not just good teams but great teams--title contenders year in and year out--or Westbrook's squads?

Westbrook post-Durant, in OKC, is impressive but the plan was "Let Westbrook do anything and everything he wanted and force the other players to figure out what to do"...and then the team realized the ceiling of a Westbrook-led team is a 1st round exit, even with Paul George.

We've never seen Durant not playing alongside other superstars we don't actually know what the correlation is. We don't know if those teams were great because of Durant or because of the overwhelming abundance of talent he's always surrounded by. We've never seen him with the kind of squad's Westbrook had post 2016 to say exactly what Durant's singular impact on winning is. We can speculate but we don't actually know.

Yes, Westbrooks ceiling as a singular force on mediocre teams seems be close to 50 wins and a first round exit in the West. Guess what? That's actually pretty good for a superstar player and leader on average to mediocre teams. That's not incredible but that's high level and shows his impact. That was Kevin Garnett's entire Timberwolves career outside of 04. Also, "Playoff P" holds as much blame for those first round exists as Russell.

Sure, Westbrook was a top 10-15 player for likely a 5-7 year stretch, which is a nice career, but not a top 50 player--maybe not even top 75 player of all-time.

Disagree. If you judge him for his team success, individual achievement, and statistical impact he is easily top 50 imo.

I judge him based on how his skill-set translates into winning championships and producing championship odds.

When on a good team Westbrook was always a title contender and almost won the title a couple of times. It's true he never won the whole thing be got close and was always in the mix. I'd say his skill set translates into producing championship odds just fine.

[Stalwart]

For all my positive talk though, Westbrook wouldn't touch my top 10 PG list ever. He's been underrated recently, but he's still historically overrated.

Sure. But I think anything lower than 12ish is personal bias and being a prisoner of the moment. I also think you could reasonably slide him in at 9 or 10 depending on your ranking philosophy.

[70sFan]

For all my positive talk though, Westbrook wouldn't touch my top 10 PG list ever. He's been underrated recently, but he's still historically overrated.

Sure. But I think anything lower than 12ish is personal bias and being a prisoner of the moment. I also think you could reasonably slide him in at 9 or 10 depending on your ranking philosophy.

I guess 12th spot is a nice one for him, though it's probably the highest I can see him. He was quite good for a brief peak he had, but his non-prime seasons are horrible and it hurts his case. PGs I'd definitely take over him (chronological order):

Jerry West
Oscar Robertson
Walt Frazier
Magic Johnson
John Stockton
Jason Kidd
Steve Nash
Chris Paul
Stephen Curry

Players I'd likely take over him:

Bob Cousy
Isiah Thomas
Gary Payton

PGs I might take over him:

Bob Davies
Nate Archibald
Gus Williams
Kevin Johnson
Chauncey Billups
Tony Parker
Damian Lillard

That gives us 19 names. Of course I wouldn't pick all of them over him, but there is a competition, it's not a given that he's inside top 12. I could forget someone as well of course.

[Owly]

Sympathize with the idea that the backlash could go too far. "a guy you can't win with" if people are saying that regarding his full career is at very best lacking nuance and probably just wrong.

Agree that what happens before and after can contaminate perspectives what happened at a particular time, one could argue they were a different player. On the other hand contexts outside the immediate frame can give a larger sample and help inform us who the player is. It's a difficult balance and hard to draw firm lines, but certainly we should be aware that this is not apex-Westbrook.

That said

James Harden was a top 3 MVP candidate in 2020 and Lebron his having one of his best offensive seasons next to WB. Once again this is not the resume of a terrible teammate. This is someone who always elevates his superstar teammates.

I ... am inclined to disagree. On '20 Rockets - All Harden On-Off +9.1; Harden and Westbrook together On-Off +5.2 (https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/2020/lineups/) and Harden's individual offensive stats are worse including less efficient (https://www.nba.com/stats/impact/#!?LineupIDs=201935&VsLineupIDs=201566&TeamID=1610612745&VsTeamID=1610612745&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Totals&Season=2019-20).

I believe the same team level stuff happened the last year in OKC with Harden and Westbrook.

I don't know what his trend is with stars but using an absolute like "always" ... you have to be confident.

BTW it's "bad rap".

[Colbinii]

BTW it's "bad rap".

Bad Wraps are at a Fast Food Joint near you...I am a fan of the Chick fil a wraps though!

[Stalwart]

For all my positive talk though, Westbrook wouldn't touch my top 10 PG list ever. He's been underrated recently, but he's still historically overrated.

Sure. But I think anything lower than 12ish is personal bias and being a prisoner of the moment. I also think you could reasonably slide him in at 9 or 10 depending on your ranking philosophy.

I guess 12th spot is a nice one for him, though it's probably the highest I can see him. He was quite good for a brief peak he had, but his non-prime seasons are horrible and it hurts his case. PGs I'd definitely take over him (chronological order):

Jerry West
Oscar Robertson
Walt Frazier
Magic Johnson
John Stockton
Jason Kidd
Steve Nash
Chris Paul
Stephen Curry

Players I'd likely take over him:

Bob Cousy
Isiah Thomas
Gary Payton

PGs I might take over him:

Bob Davies
Nate Archibald
Gus Williams
Kevin Johnson
Chauncey Billups
Tony Parker
Damian Lillard

That gives us 19 names. Of course I wouldn't pick all of them over him, but there is a competition, it's not a given that he's inside top 12. I could forget someone as well of course.

Well if you are ranking your players by who you would take then all bets are off. You could come up with any list and any rationale you wanted to depending on how you view the game. But if you are looking at what players were able to do in the game and in their careers than you have to put Westbrook above that bottom group. None of those guys have the combined team and indivdual success as Westbrook nor the statistical production. I think literally #12 is the lowest you can rank him. You could stretch it all the way up to #8 or #9.

I'd most likely have him around 10 or 11.

[Stalwart]

Sympathize with the idea that the backlash could go too far. "a guy you can't win with" if people are saying that regarding his full career is at very best lacking nuance and probably just wrong.

Agree that what happens before and after can contaminate perspectives what happened at a particular time, one could argue they were a different player. On the other hand contexts outside the immediate frame can give a larger sample and help inform us who the player is. It's a difficult balance and hard to draw firm lines, but certainly we should be aware that this is not apex-Westbrook.

That said

James Harden was a top 3 MVP candidate in 2020 and Lebron his having one of his best offensive seasons next to WB. Once again this is not the resume of a terrible teammate. This is someone who always elevates his superstar teammates.

I ... am inclined to disagree. On '20 Rockets - All Harden On-Off +9.1; Harden and Westbrook together On-Off +5.2 (https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/2020/lineups/) and Harden's individual offensive stats are worse including less efficient (https://www.nba.com/stats/impact/#!?LineupIDs=201935&VsLineupIDs=201566&TeamID=1610612745&VsTeamID=1610612745&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Totals&Season=2019-20).

I believe the same team level stuff happened the last year in OKC with Harden and Westbrook.

I don't know what his trend is with stars but using an absolute like "always" ... you have to be confident.

Ok, I shouldn't have used the word 'always'. A better way to say it is Westbrook has a long track record of either helping elevate his superstar teammates or at least not getting in their way. During the 2020 season both Harden and Westbrook were coming off of 5 or so extremely high impact over the top seasons and were due for a dip as they were beginning to age and accumulate milage. I'm not sure how much blame we can put on Russ for Harden's dip. But we can say Harden was still able to maintain his MVP form during that season and finish in the top half of the West. Russ, like usual, found a way to maintain his own level of production while not taking away from his teammates and still having one of the best teams in the league.

BTW it's "bad rap".

That's a bold faced lie.

[70sFan]

Sure. But I think anything lower than 12ish is personal bias and being a prisoner of the moment. I also think you could reasonably slide him in at 9 or 10 depending on your ranking philosophy.

I guess 12th spot is a nice one for him, though it's probably the highest I can see him. He was quite good for a brief peak he had, but his non-prime seasons are horrible and it hurts his case. PGs I'd definitely take over him (chronological order):

Jerry West
Oscar Robertson
Walt Frazier
Magic Johnson
John Stockton
Jason Kidd
Steve Nash
Chris Paul
Stephen Curry

Players I'd likely take over him:

Bob Cousy
Isiah Thomas
Gary Payton

PGs I might take over him:

Bob Davies
Nate Archibald
Gus Williams
Kevin Johnson
Chauncey Billups
Tony Parker
Damian Lillard

That gives us 19 names. Of course I wouldn't pick all of them over him, but there is a competition, it's not a given that he's inside top 12. I could forget someone as well of course.

Well if you are ranking your players by who you would take then all bets are off. You could come up with any list and any rationale you wanted to depending on how you view the game. But if you are looking at what players were able to do in the game and in their careers than you have to put Westbrook above that bottom group. None of those guys have the combined team and indivdual success as Westbrook nor the statistical production. I think literally #12 is the lowest you can rank him. You could stretch it all the way up to #8 or #9.

I'd most likely have him around 10 or 11.

Wait, so if #12 is literally the lowest then it means that you have to have someone from my first 2 tiers below him. Who would that be?

Davies, Williams, Billups and Parker have noticeably higher team success. None of them have MVP, but let's take a look:

Russell Westbrook: 0 titles, 1 finals appeariance, 1 MVP, 9 all-nba selections (7 without third team), 9 all-star selections

Bob Davies: 1 title, 1 finals appeariance, 0 MVP, 5 all-nba selections (5 without third team), 4 all-star selections

Gus Williams: 1 title, 2 finals appeariance, 0 MVP, 3 all-nba selections (3 without third team), 2 all-star selections

Chauncey Billups: 1 title, 2 finals appeariance, 0 MVP, 3 all-nba selections (1 without third team), 5 all-star selections

Tony Parker: 4 titles, 5 finals appeariance, 0 MVP, 4 all-nba selections (3 without third team), 6 all-star selections

I think that you can argue that at least Davies and Parker have comparable resumes. With Williams, it depends on how much you value all-star games (I don't value them at all).

[Owly]

I guess 12th spot is a nice one for him, though it's probably the highest I can see him. He was quite good for a brief peak he had, but his non-prime seasons are horrible and it hurts his case. PGs I'd definitely take over him (chronological order):

Jerry West
Oscar Robertson
Walt Frazier
Magic Johnson
John Stockton
Jason Kidd
Steve Nash
Chris Paul
Stephen Curry

Players I'd likely take over him:

Bob Cousy
Isiah Thomas
Gary Payton

PGs I might take over him:

Bob Davies
Nate Archibald
Gus Williams
Kevin Johnson
Chauncey Billups
Tony Parker
Damian Lillard

That gives us 19 names. Of course I wouldn't pick all of them over him, but there is a competition, it's not a given that he's inside top 12. I could forget someone as well of course.

Well if you are ranking your players by who you would take then all bets are off. You could come up with any list and any rationale you wanted to depending on how you view the game. But if you are looking at what players were able to do in the game and in their careers than you have to put Westbrook above that bottom group. None of those guys have the combined team and indivdual success as Westbrook nor the statistical production. I think literally #12 is the lowest you can rank him. You could stretch it all the way up to #8 or #9.

I'd most likely have him around 10 or 11.

Wait, so if #12 is literally the lowest then it means that you have to have someone from my first 2 tiers below him. Who would that be?

Davies, Williams, Billups and Parker have noticeably higher team success. None of them have MVP, but let's take a look:

Russell Westbrook: 0 titles, 1 finals appeariance, 1 MVP, 9 all-nba selections (7 without third team), 9 all-star selections

Bob Davies: 1 title, 1 finals appeariance, 0 MVP, 5 all-nba selections (5 without third team), 4 all-star selections

Gus Williams: 1 title, 2 finals appeariance, 0 MVP, 3 all-nba selections (3 without third team), 2 all-star selections

Chauncey Billups: 1 title, 2 finals appeariance, 0 MVP, 3 all-nba selections (1 without third team), 5 all-star selections

Tony Parker: 4 titles, 5 finals appeariance, 0 MVP, 4 all-nba selections (3 without third team), 6 all-star selections

I think that you can argue that at least Davies and Parker have comparable resumes. With Williams, it depends on how much you value all-star games (I don't value them at all).

Davies has an NBL MVP when it was the better league and a further NBL title (though the latter, occurring before the BAA foundation in 1946 it's often consider before the major-league era).

[70sFan]

Well if you are ranking your players by who you would take then all bets are off. You could come up with any list and any rationale you wanted to depending on how you view the game. But if you are looking at what players were able to do in the game and in their careers than you have to put Westbrook above that bottom group. None of those guys have the combined team and indivdual success as Westbrook nor the statistical production. I think literally #12 is the lowest you can rank him. You could stretch it all the way up to #8 or #9.

I'd most likely have him around 10 or 11.

Wait, so if #12 is literally the lowest then it means that you have to have someone from my first 2 tiers below him. Who would that be?

Davies, Williams, Billups and Parker have noticeably higher team success. None of them have MVP, but let's take a look:

Russell Westbrook: 0 titles, 1 finals appeariance, 1 MVP, 9 all-nba selections (7 without third team), 9 all-star selections

Bob Davies: 1 title, 1 finals appeariance, 0 MVP, 5 all-nba selections (5 without third team), 4 all-star selections

Gus Williams: 1 title, 2 finals appeariance, 0 MVP, 3 all-nba selections (3 without third team), 2 all-star selections

Chauncey Billups: 1 title, 2 finals appeariance, 0 MVP, 3 all-nba selections (1 without third team), 5 all-star selections

Tony Parker: 4 titles, 5 finals appeariance, 0 MVP, 4 all-nba selections (3 without third team), 6 all-star selections

I think that you can argue that at least Davies and Parker have comparable resumes. With Williams, it depends on how much you value all-star games (I don't value them at all).

Davies has an NBL MVP when it was the better league and a further NBL title (though the latter, occurring before the BAA foundation in 1946 it's often consider before the major-league era).

I forgot about it, thanks!