All-Season Player of the Year Discussion thread

[mischievous]

I'm not sure how much I'm going to dock CP3 for missing time early this round, but I was considering him at the 1 spot after the Spurs series.

It's debatable whether or not Paul was even the best player on his team in the Spurs series. Griffin put up 24/13/7.4 assts. I find it a little weird that one series where he wasn't really better than the other top 4-5 candidates would have vaulted him to the one spot anyways.

It didn't vault him per se, I was considering slotting him there after the season as well. Curry was and is my favorite for the spot though.

Touche'.

But yeah i had him at 4-5 after the reg season and it is still that way now. As long as you are consistent then that's fair.

[GSP]

-Harden almost certainly will be in my Top 5, and will likely be ahead of Paul.

How come? The rockets seasons was saved with him riding the bench and the Rockets playing by far their best defensive quarter of the playoffs while scoring 40 off mostly stops. Its not like anyone is seriously considering Dwight for a Poy spot either..

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm not gonna blame CP3 for the fact that his teammates shot like crap in the last few games. I'll dock him a little bit for the fact that the team he led completely collapsed, but at the end of the day, he's the only one who played his butt of for his team. The rest of the supporting cast was basically non-existant.

LOL Blake Griffin was arguably their best player in this series.

I really don't understand this kind of logic for Chris Paul anymore...no other superstar in the league plays with someone as good as Blake. Just how much more help does Paul need when he already has Blake? Not to mention that Redick and Jordan are excellent role players that any team would love to have.

Paul deserves MORE criticism than LeBron when he wasn't able to win with Wade...unlike Wade, Blake doesn't provide redundancy with Paul...and unlike Wade, Blake isn't constantly injured and on the decline. He's in the prime of his career.

This makes no sense, Chris Pauls' series against the Rockets was way better than what James did against the Mavericks, and that was with Chris Paul being injured.

The Clippers are not stacked, they're a two man carry job and both Griffin and Paul certainly played like big time stars. They didn't play perfect which is why they lost, and with a team like the Clippers you have to play perfect.

You can mention DeAndre Jordan and Reddick okay sure, they're solid but limited players - after them...? You're talking about an incredibly shallow team. Matt Barnes is the 5th best player on their team, and DeAndre Jordan is getting intentionally fouled half the time. Griffin and Paul have to play almost an entire game for the Clippers to stand a chance against good teams.

Blake Griffin is nowhere near as good as D-Wade, not even going to fancy that. Wade was arguably the best player in the NBA that year Miami lost. James also plays in the East, I don't know why he gets so much credit about beating the Bulls, when have the Bulls ever done anything remotely impressive in the post season during the entire Derrick Rose era? James didn't even need to play great to beat the Bulls, the Clippers would destroy Chicago.


CP3 is still a top 3 player this year, maybe if James goes crazy I would put him over CP3, but those chances are slim. Chris Paul had a better RS and a better PS. Harden? Harden was benched for christ sake.

[CBA]

It's hard to imagine anyway Curry doesn't have a huge series. I expect Houston to keep up the strategy of their wins against the Clippers and just let him score on Terry and Prigioni.

[Doctor MJ]

-Harden almost certainly will be in my Top 5, and will likely be ahead of Paul.

How come? The rockets seasons was saved with him riding the bench and the Rockets playing by far their best defensive quarter of the playoffs while scoring 40 off mostly stops. Its not like anyone is seriously considering Dwight for a Poy spot either..

I'm glad you challenged me on this. Any time someone says: "Look, that comeback had nothing to do with Harden. Without it the Rockets lose in humiliating fashion. Why are you letting that shape your assessment of Harden?"

To which I'd say:

1) Harden ranked above Paul on my list before the playoffs. From what I saw he lifted his team more than Paul, and the real argument for Paul was in his ability to lift better teams. Not simply because the Clippers seemed better than the Rockets, but that I questioned whether the Rockets model could come even close to matching up to RS levels.

That doubt was part of the reason why I had Curry ahead of Harden. There you had a guy lead a truly insane team with all the indications of impact you could want, and a history of rising ahead of Harden come the playoffs. Paul had similar arguments, they were just less salient. I was okay with Harden being above Paul, but to be honest I think I thought I'd probably move Paul ahead when all was said & done. Harden's placement was a placeholder based on me not being entirely sure how I'd end up seeing Houston.

2) On Houston, at this point at the very least, I think you have to look at them as being in the same ballpark as the Clippers given that they beat the Clippers. And yeah it's noteworthy that that one run was without Harden, but the fundamental thing is that Houston just can't be stated to be much worse than their regular season standing now, and so that narrative dismissing Harden just never gets started. The fact that things might have been otherwise doesn't change what we've actually seen. It's fine to still think the Clippers are the better team, but they have not earned the right to be talked about as being a tier ahead. They lost. Houston is now further than the Clippers have ever been. Play it as it lies.

3) On Harden, I'm totally down with anyone saying about any putative 1 man team: Turns out it's not a 1 man team. That's always the truth. But in terms of why we should damn Harden for his spot on the bench at that moment, to me that only makes sense if you want to argue that this is an unreal collection of talent that Harden's been holding back. And I just don't see it. I think the offensive scheme needs to evolve into something more synergistic, but Harden has legit impact in the regular season, and I've yet to be convinced that things are clearly reversed now.

4) On Paul, and his ranking relative to Harden: As I said, Paul had to surpass Harden in these playoffs. I rather expected him to do so, but he still had to actually do it. And then of course the two guys met head to head, and it's hard to fathom how someone can come out of that series and say "Wow Chris Paul! That right there is proof he's clearly above Harden!" The epic comeback without Harden on the bench was a blemish on Harden's resume, but at least as big a blemish came on Paul's side with how well the Clippers played without him over 2 games, the fact that Paul wasn't his team's MVP, and the fact his team lost seeming to lose their composure along the way.

If you had Paul ahead of Harden before the series, I understand not letting Harden rise above Paul simply because Harden's team won, but by that same token: I don't know how Paul rises above Harden based on that series.

So what then? Should I say that Paul had already surpassed Harden because of the Spurs series? Perhaps. I think though most would understand why that's a tough one. It's very hard to brag "I'm better because I helped eliminate Team X" when the other guy can come back and say "Yeah, and I did the same to you and your team.", even if there's truth in the matter. I WAS more impressed in the Clippers victory over the Spurs than the Rockets victory over the Clippers, but the Clippers being on both ends of the totem pole is a mixed narrative to say the least.

[fuzzy_dunlop]

^
I think you really need to wait and see how Harden performs against the Warriors before making much of anything of his playoff run. I mean they beat a decimated no D Mavs team and stunned the clips in 7 while being outscored over the series and without Harden even playing all that well. The clips lack of depth was the real story of that series as opposed to anything to do with Harden vs CP.

They have a negative PD in the playoffs FFS, this is mostly luck.

[bondom34]

I was ready to put CP at 2 myself, but he was 3rd for me after the RS as well, and given the way the series ended I have a hard time putting him above Harden too. Honestly the only 2 spots in my 5 that are locks right now are 1 (Curry) and 5 (Westbrook) with Harden, Lebron, and Paul at 2, 3, and 4 in some order yet to be finalized.

[RSCD3_]

A certain part of me started laughing when josh smith hit three 3's like Of course this happens now
He's been in 49 playoff games beforehand and only made 2 or more threes in the 4th twice before that.
It's almost like Sports god are creating new ways to torment chris paul.

[Doctor MJ]

^
I think you really need to wait and see how Harden performs against the Warriors before making much of anything of his playoff run. I mean they beat a decimated no D Mavs team and stunned the clips in 7 while being outscored over the series and without Harden even playing all that well. The clips lack of depth was the real story of that series as opposed to anything to do with Harden vs CP.

They have a negative PD in the playoffs FFS, this is mostly luck.

I'm not sure what I said that gave the impression I was leaping to conclusions that changed my perspective from the regular season. What I was trying to convey was that it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to elevate Paul over Harden based on the playoffs given what we just witnessed. If you already had Paul ahead, cool, but leaping Paul over anyone right now just seems strange.

Re: Clips lack of depth! Lack of depth looked fine before Paul started playing. Look, there's truth in what you say, but at the same time you're implying that I'm using an over simplistic perspective to hold it against the guy on the losing team...but the counterpoint to that is that when you talk up a guy on the losing team you're saying "Look how little help he had", which doesn't work well when the team did quite a lot without said player.

Re: Negative PD in the playoffs! Which they have only because of the Clippers series...which the Clippers lost because of the games when Paul played in them. I totally get if you're still skeptical of the Rockets, but there is not knock on the Rockets that doesn't end up boomeranging on the Clippers.

I would say the overarching reality here is that the better team probably lost this series. That's not supposed to happen in a 7 game series, but this is the textbook case of how it might happen: When you aren't "up" for every game, you're essentially reducing the signal-to-noise of the series. A Clipper team totally hyped for every game maybe sweeps this series...but they weren't, and then they choked. And I'm not someone who uses "choked" often. I hate when people attach it to players like its a permanent trait, but whatever you want to call it, they wet the bed. And wet it to the point we're not talking about the Clips getting one lucky shot, no, the Rockets won the final 2 games of the series decisively.

The question then becomes for an analyst: Is there some reason why I should look at that losing "better team" as somehow more impressive than if they had simply looked weaker all series and lost similarly in game 7? If I'm talking about future expectations that's one thing, but these guys have to go out and actually play the game, and they need to be judged on that afterward. I'm not so reactionary that I'm going to drop Chris Paul way down my list because of what happened, but I cannot pretend my end takeaway on the Clippers post-season made Paul look more impressive than he looked in the regular season. So why would I be elevating him over other guys?

Not saying it can't happen, because that depends on the play of others, but I don't see any reason to look at Harden as having embarrassed himself this post-season that he'd have to drop below Paul.

[fuzzy_dunlop]

^
yeah I mostly agree with that, I just don't see anything that could plausibly happen in the next 2 rounds that would knock him out of my personal top 3 POY ballot. If you agree with that then there's really no disagreement here, but let's not act like those hot takey instincts haven't been on full display on this board ever since they lost.

On a personal level I don't like the Clippers but the whole "lol CP3 still hasn't made the WCF" line is a pretty egregious example of idiotic narrative based player evaluation and I guess I just wanted to get my contempt for it off my chest. Didn't mean to strawman you in the process tho.

[Doctor MJ]

^
yeah I mostly agree with that, I just don't see anything that could plausibly happen in the next 2 rounds that would knock him out of my personal top 3 POY ballot. If you agree with that then there's really no disagreement here, but let's not act like those hot takey instincts haven't been on full display on this board ever since they lost.

On a personal level I don't like the Clippers but the whole "lol CP3 still hasn't made the WCF" line is a pretty egregious example of idiotic narrative based player evaluation and I guess I just wanted to get my contempt for it off my chest. Didn't mean to strawman you in the process tho.

I think it's pretty likely Paul ends up 4th on my list behind Curry, Harden, and LeBron (with LeBron being the guy who might keep rising and rising). I don't know what would persuade me to have Paul lower than 4th though (Davis is my #5).

I'm SO with you on the 2nd paragraph. It's just infuriating seeing people latch on to whatever's handy. "He can't get past the 2nd round", and if he does then what? "He can't get to the finals". And if he does? "He can't win the big one". And if he does? "He had tons of help, look at what he did in earlier years."

To me it shows just how impossible it much feel to these people to actually do analysis on a situation. They rely on abstractions put into discrete form because they cannot make the analysis concrete based on the player's actual actions, and then they get angry when you point out how absurd that is.

[therealbig3]

I was ready to put CP at 2 myself, but he was 3rd for me after the RS as well, and given the way the series ended I have a hard time putting him above Harden too. Honestly the only 2 spots in my 5 that are locks right now are 1 (Curry) and 5 (Westbrook) with Harden, Lebron, and Paul at 2, 3, and 4 in some order yet to be finalized.

How does Davis not make your list?

[bondom34]

I was ready to put CP at 2 myself, but he was 3rd for me after the RS as well, and given the way the series ended I have a hard time putting him above Harden too. Honestly the only 2 spots in my 5 that are locks right now are 1 (Curry) and 5 (Westbrook) with Harden, Lebron, and Paul at 2, 3, and 4 in some order yet to be finalized.

How does Davis not make your list?

I don't see a way I put him over anyone in the five I have? I think Westbrook had a bigger impact, and the other 4 are still playing.

[therealbig3]

I was ready to put CP at 2 myself, but he was 3rd for me after the RS as well, and given the way the series ended I have a hard time putting him above Harden too. Honestly the only 2 spots in my 5 that are locks right now are 1 (Curry) and 5 (Westbrook) with Harden, Lebron, and Paul at 2, 3, and 4 in some order yet to be finalized.

How does Davis not make your list?

I don't see a way I put him over anyone in the five I have? I think Westbrook had a bigger impact, and the other 4 are still playing.

Not trying to challenge you or call you out or anything, I was actually curious.

Because it's just really hard to argue with Davis's statistical output this season, and it's not like he disappointed in the playoffs at all. Unless there's something that says he's having a lot less impact than it seems, what exactly is keeping him back from those other players?

In terms of the playoffs, he also had a clearly worse team around him than anyone else still playing. And if that's the requirement, then why isn't the fact that he made the playoffs and Westbrook didn't enough to give Davis the nod?

[bondom34]

How does Davis not make your list?

I don't see a way I put him over anyone in the five I have? I think Westbrook had a bigger impact, and the other 4 are still playing.

Not trying to challenge you or call you out or anything, I was actually curious.

Because it's just really hard to argue with Davis's statistical output this season, and it's not like he disappointed in the playoffs at all. Unless there's something that says he's having a lot less impact than it seems, what exactly is keeping him back from those other players?

In terms of the playoffs, he also had a clearly worse team around him than anyone else still playing. And if that's the requirement, then why isn't the fact that he made the playoffs and Westbrook didn't enough to give Davis the nod?

Ultimately, Davis making the postseason alone wasn't enough, his team had the same record and a worse SRS. I watched WB all season, and that team was literally non-functional w/o him, at the least the Pels were semi-functional w/o AD. I can't argue his output but felt in the end Westbrook's was greater as a whole toward getting OKC to where they were. I can't put either of those 2 ahead of the top 4 clearly, but think that if you took both of them off their respective teams, the Thunder end up having a greater dropoff than the Pelicans, if that makes sense. And no prob questioning, its good to have people who are interested .

[Doctor MJ]

I don't see a way I put him over anyone in the five I have? I think Westbrook had a bigger impact, and the other 4 are still playing.

Not trying to challenge you or call you out or anything, I was actually curious.

Because it's just really hard to argue with Davis's statistical output this season, and it's not like he disappointed in the playoffs at all. Unless there's something that says he's having a lot less impact than it seems, what exactly is keeping him back from those other players?

In terms of the playoffs, he also had a clearly worse team around him than anyone else still playing. And if that's the requirement, then why isn't the fact that he made the playoffs and Westbrook didn't enough to give Davis the nod?

Ultimately, Davis making the postseason alone wasn't enough, his team had the same record and a worse SRS. I watched WB all season, and that team was literally non-functional w/o him, at the least the Pels were semi-functional w/o AD. I can't argue his output but felt in the end Westbrook's was greater as a whole toward getting OKC to where they were. I can't put either of those 2 ahead of the top 4 clearly, but think that if you took both of them off their respective teams, the Thunder end up having a greater dropoff than the Pelicans, if that makes sense. And no prob questioning, its good to have people who are interested .

Welp, here I go again. Let the record show bondom has never been anything but polite even though I end up being negative toward a guy on his team repeatedly:

Your logic makes sense generally, it's just weird given that your reasoning is essentially the basis behind +/- statistics, and literally all of them say Davis had more impact:

Raw +/- rate: Davis +5.6, Westbrook +4.7
Raw on/off: Davis +11.3, Westbrook +6.6 (and let's note that this represents Westbrook's career best)
NPI RAPM: Davis +6.81, Westbrook +1.00
Real Plus Minus: Davis +8.17, Westbrook +7.08

Now in terms of raw wins and losses Westbrook appears to have an edge:

Westbrook 40-27, Davis 39-29

Slight edge for Westbrook, but of course that includes times spent with Durant, and your statement about the team without Westbrook surely means sans Durant also. Here's Westbrook without Durant:

Westbrook 22-18

So to summarize: Every +/- based metric we have favors Davis and without Durant in the lineup, Westbrook had nowhere near the success Davis had.

I think clearly you'd say Westbrook without Durant has much less material to work with in response to the 22-18 point, and I get that, but I feel like your sense of these guys might be based on particular stretches. A stretch where Davis' team did okay without him, and a stretch where Westbrook seemed to make the Thunder downright good with super heroic tactics. Just keep in mind that when you look at the whole season there no metrics that say anything other than: The Pelicans missed Davis like crazy when he didn't play and the Thunder led by Westbrook as the lone star were mediocre.

None of that is outright proof that you're wrong of course, and clearly you think of the Thunder as being really, really weak outside of Westbrook this year which makes your thinking make sense, but if someone asked me to lay out a data-based argument for Westbrook here, I'm honestly not sure how I'd do it.

[Doctor MJ]

I was ready to put CP at 2 myself, but he was 3rd for me after the RS as well, and given the way the series ended I have a hard time putting him above Harden too. Honestly the only 2 spots in my 5 that are locks right now are 1 (Curry) and 5 (Westbrook) with Harden, Lebron, and Paul at 2, 3, and 4 in some order yet to be finalized.

How does Davis not make your list?

You're questioning bondom here, but I feel like I'm probably in the same boat with him in the sense that it's not about Davis deserving to be 5th over Westbrook, but Davis deserving to be even higher given his box score domination, his "that's not possible" eyeball game, and clear-cut superstar impact.

I'm a huge Davis guy as I think you know, but in all honesty it's very hard for me to make a case for him over any of Curry, Harden, LeBron, or Paul at this point. To this point he's led a team that's simply mediocre and not set to scale well into contending status, and it's not like there's evidence of him having lift well beyond those other guys leading much stronger teams. I'm really looking forward to next year because I think with a better coach we might see his team truly click - not betting against Davis by any means - but in terms of what's truly demonstrated thus far, he's still isn't quite at the very top.

[bondom34]

Not trying to challenge you or call you out or anything, I was actually curious.

Because it's just really hard to argue with Davis's statistical output this season, and it's not like he disappointed in the playoffs at all. Unless there's something that says he's having a lot less impact than it seems, what exactly is keeping him back from those other players?

In terms of the playoffs, he also had a clearly worse team around him than anyone else still playing. And if that's the requirement, then why isn't the fact that he made the playoffs and Westbrook didn't enough to give Davis the nod?

Ultimately, Davis making the postseason alone wasn't enough, his team had the same record and a worse SRS. I watched WB all season, and that team was literally non-functional w/o him, at the least the Pels were semi-functional w/o AD. I can't argue his output but felt in the end Westbrook's was greater as a whole toward getting OKC to where they were. I can't put either of those 2 ahead of the top 4 clearly, but think that if you took both of them off their respective teams, the Thunder end up having a greater dropoff than the Pelicans, if that makes sense. And no prob questioning, its good to have people who are interested .

Welp, here I go again. Let the record show bondom has never been anything but polite even though I end up being negative toward a guy on his team repeatedly:

Your logic makes sense generally, it's just weird given that your reasoning is essentially the basis behind +/- statistics, and literally all of them say Davis had more impact:

Raw +/- rate: Davis +5.6, Westbrook +4.7
Raw on/off: Davis +11.3, Westbrook +6.6 (and let's note that this represents Westbrook's career best)
NPI RAPM: Davis +6.81, Westbrook +1.00
Real Plus Minus: Davis +8.17, Westbrook +7.08

Now in terms of raw wins and losses Westbrook appears to have an edge:

Westbrook 40-27, Davis 39-29

Slight edge for Westbrook, but of course that includes times spent with Durant, and your statement about the team without Westbrook surely means sans Durant also. Here's Westbrook without Durant:

Westbrook 22-18

So to summarize: Every +/- based metric we have favors Davis and without Durant in the lineup, Westbrook had nowhere near the success Davis had.

I think clearly you'd say Westbrook without Durant has much less material to work with in response to the 22-18 point, and I get that, but I feel like your sense of these guys might be based on particular stretches. A stretch where Davis' team did okay without him, and a stretch where Westbrook seemed to make the Thunder downright good with super heroic tactics. Just keep in mind that when you look at the whole season there no metrics that say anything other than: The Pelicans missed Davis like crazy when he didn't play and the Thunder led by Westbrook as the lone star were mediocre.

None of that is outright proof that you're wrong of course, and clearly you think of the Thunder as being really, really weak outside of Westbrook this year which makes your thinking make sense, but if someone asked me to lay out a data-based argument for Westbrook here, I'm honestly not sure how I'd do it.

My argument is based flatly off watching what happened. I'm going to be that guy, but sometimes you really do have to watch the games. I know you're all in on plus/minus and really don't like Westbrook, but I'm running in circles trying to explain at this point. Every time I look at RAPM I'm finding that we're ultimately looking at a game and taking everything we want to see as fans and projecting it onto certain players, and I'm finding it bizarre that certain traits inherently have made players "good" or "bad". The board has suddenly proclaimed Davis better than Durant and Kawhi is a top 5 player, on the basis of a single metric.

In the end, Westbrook had a team in which the following happened, and I'd note all of this is affecting the numbers you're seeing:
1. Start the season, roster is 8 men deep.
2. He returns. Looks okay.
3. KD comes back, fantastic play for a few weeks, he goes out.
4. He looks fantastic for 2 months.
5. Adams, Roberson, and Collison go out while Perkins is traded for Kanter. The defense of the entire team is shot, completely wrecking any semblance of ability to use plus/minus effectively for defense.
6. Adams comes back, team looks amazing again.
7. Ibaka goes out, defense again shot.

So, in summary, Davis's team had actually more continuity w/o him than WB's. There's nothing plus/minus can tell me when the team missed this many key members for weeks on end and they never had a full lineup over 2 weeks. I'm all for the data, but in the end if I can't get any complete data, I need to use what happened and look at what would likely be inferred. Here's an image for games lost and impact (PO teams are green):



Again, I realize you can't stand WB's game, but he had nothing to work with. Given the lack of continuity entirely and what he did, and the fact that according to everyone outside OKC, his coach was as incompetent or moreso than AD's, people just aren't giving credit.

And one final number, to emphasize....

Team games in which players were inactive:
OKC: 196
NOP: 98

Plus/minus can't work with that small a sample and be reliable, its like using it for the playoffs or other small samples early in the season.

I needed a rant. More coffee please this morning.

Edit (re-edited to 2 man lineups):

Lineup minutes for the most used 2 man lineups:

AD:
1915
1375
1320
1110
878

Westbrook:
1411
1228
998
980
778

[Doctor MJ]

Spoiler:

Ultimately, Davis making the postseason alone wasn't enough, his team had the same record and a worse SRS. I watched WB all season, and that team was literally non-functional w/o him, at the least the Pels were semi-functional w/o AD. I can't argue his output but felt in the end Westbrook's was greater as a whole toward getting OKC to where they were. I can't put either of those 2 ahead of the top 4 clearly, but think that if you took both of them off their respective teams, the Thunder end up having a greater dropoff than the Pelicans, if that makes sense. And no prob questioning, its good to have people who are interested .

Welp, here I go again. Let the record show bondom has never been anything but polite even though I end up being negative toward a guy on his team repeatedly:

Your logic makes sense generally, it's just weird given that your reasoning is essentially the basis behind +/- statistics, and literally all of them say Davis had more impact:

Raw +/- rate: Davis +5.6, Westbrook +4.7
Raw on/off: Davis +11.3, Westbrook +6.6 (and let's note that this represents Westbrook's career best)
NPI RAPM: Davis +6.81, Westbrook +1.00
Real Plus Minus: Davis +8.17, Westbrook +7.08

Now in terms of raw wins and losses Westbrook appears to have an edge:

Westbrook 40-27, Davis 39-29

Slight edge for Westbrook, but of course that includes times spent with Durant, and your statement about the team without Westbrook surely means sans Durant also. Here's Westbrook without Durant:

Westbrook 22-18

So to summarize: Every +/- based metric we have favors Davis and without Durant in the lineup, Westbrook had nowhere near the success Davis had.

I think clearly you'd say Westbrook without Durant has much less material to work with in response to the 22-18 point, and I get that, but I feel like your sense of these guys might be based on particular stretches. A stretch where Davis' team did okay without him, and a stretch where Westbrook seemed to make the Thunder downright good with super heroic tactics. Just keep in mind that when you look at the whole season there no metrics that say anything other than: The Pelicans missed Davis like crazy when he didn't play and the Thunder led by Westbrook as the lone star were mediocre.

None of that is outright proof that you're wrong of course, and clearly you think of the Thunder as being really, really weak outside of Westbrook this year which makes your thinking make sense, but if someone asked me to lay out a data-based argument for Westbrook here, I'm honestly not sure how I'd do it.

My argument is based flatly off watching what happened. I'm going to be that guy, but sometimes you really do have to watch the games. I know you're all in on plus/minus and really don't like Westbrook, but I'm running in circles trying to explain at this point. Every time I look at RAPM I'm finding that we're ultimately looking at a game and taking everything we want to see as fans and projecting it onto certain players, and I'm finding it bizarre that certain traits inherently have made players "good" or "bad". The board has suddenly proclaimed Davis better than Durant and Kawhi is a top 5 player, on the basis of a single metric.

In the end, Westbrook had a team in which the following happened, and I'd note all of this is affecting the numbers you're seeing:
1. Start the season, roster is 8 men deep.
2. He returns. Looks okay.
3. KD comes back, fantastic play for a few weeks, he goes out.
4. He looks fantastic for 2 months.
5. Adams, Roberson, and Collison go out while Perkins is traded for Kanter. The defense of the entire team is shot, completely wrecking any semblance of ability to use plus/minus effectively for defense.
6. Adams comes back, team looks amazing again.
7. Ibaka goes out, defense again shot.

So, in summary, Davis's team had actually more continuity w/o him than WB's. There's nothing plus/minus can tell me when the team missed this many key members for weeks on end and they never had a full lineup over 2 weeks. I'm all for the data, but in the end if I can't get any complete data, I need to use what happened and look at what would likely be inferred. Here's an image for games lost and impact (PO teams are green):



Again, I realize you can't stand WB's game, but he had nothing to work with. Given the lack of continuity entirely and what he did, and the fact that according to everyone outside OKC, his coach was as incompetent or moreso than AD's, people just aren't giving credit.

And one final number, to emphasize....

Team games in which players were inactive:
OKC: 196
NOP: 98

Plus/minus can't work with that small a sample and be reliable, its like using it for the playoffs or other small samples early in the season.

I needed a rant. More coffee please this morning.

Edit (re-edited to 2 man lineups):

Lineup minutes for the most used 2 man lineups:

AD:
1915
1375
1320
1110
878

Westbrook:
1411
1228
998
980
778

Hey bondom, I'm sorry you made a quality post that people should read, but it seems problematic for me to answer broadly. I think I need to leave things be. The one thing I'll say is that I wouldn't have responded at all if you didn't use the exact phrase you did.

[bondom34]

Spoiler:

Welp, here I go again. Let the record show bondom has never been anything but polite even though I end up being negative toward a guy on his team repeatedly:

Your logic makes sense generally, it's just weird given that your reasoning is essentially the basis behind +/- statistics, and literally all of them say Davis had more impact:

Raw +/- rate: Davis +5.6, Westbrook +4.7
Raw on/off: Davis +11.3, Westbrook +6.6 (and let's note that this represents Westbrook's career best)
NPI RAPM: Davis +6.81, Westbrook +1.00
Real Plus Minus: Davis +8.17, Westbrook +7.08

Now in terms of raw wins and losses Westbrook appears to have an edge:

Westbrook 40-27, Davis 39-29

Slight edge for Westbrook, but of course that includes times spent with Durant, and your statement about the team without Westbrook surely means sans Durant also. Here's Westbrook without Durant:

Westbrook 22-18

So to summarize: Every +/- based metric we have favors Davis and without Durant in the lineup, Westbrook had nowhere near the success Davis had.

I think clearly you'd say Westbrook without Durant has much less material to work with in response to the 22-18 point, and I get that, but I feel like your sense of these guys might be based on particular stretches. A stretch where Davis' team did okay without him, and a stretch where Westbrook seemed to make the Thunder downright good with super heroic tactics. Just keep in mind that when you look at the whole season there no metrics that say anything other than: The Pelicans missed Davis like crazy when he didn't play and the Thunder led by Westbrook as the lone star were mediocre.

None of that is outright proof that you're wrong of course, and clearly you think of the Thunder as being really, really weak outside of Westbrook this year which makes your thinking make sense, but if someone asked me to lay out a data-based argument for Westbrook here, I'm honestly not sure how I'd do it.

My argument is based flatly off watching what happened. I'm going to be that guy, but sometimes you really do have to watch the games. I know you're all in on plus/minus and really don't like Westbrook, but I'm running in circles trying to explain at this point. Every time I look at RAPM I'm finding that we're ultimately looking at a game and taking everything we want to see as fans and projecting it onto certain players, and I'm finding it bizarre that certain traits inherently have made players "good" or "bad". The board has suddenly proclaimed Davis better than Durant and Kawhi is a top 5 player, on the basis of a single metric.

In the end, Westbrook had a team in which the following happened, and I'd note all of this is affecting the numbers you're seeing:
1. Start the season, roster is 8 men deep.
2. He returns. Looks okay.
3. KD comes back, fantastic play for a few weeks, he goes out.
4. He looks fantastic for 2 months.
5. Adams, Roberson, and Collison go out while Perkins is traded for Kanter. The defense of the entire team is shot, completely wrecking any semblance of ability to use plus/minus effectively for defense.
6. Adams comes back, team looks amazing again.
7. Ibaka goes out, defense again shot.

So, in summary, Davis's team had actually more continuity w/o him than WB's. There's nothing plus/minus can tell me when the team missed this many key members for weeks on end and they never had a full lineup over 2 weeks. I'm all for the data, but in the end if I can't get any complete data, I need to use what happened and look at what would likely be inferred. Here's an image for games lost and impact (PO teams are green):



Again, I realize you can't stand WB's game, but he had nothing to work with. Given the lack of continuity entirely and what he did, and the fact that according to everyone outside OKC, his coach was as incompetent or moreso than AD's, people just aren't giving credit.

And one final number, to emphasize....

Team games in which players were inactive:
OKC: 196
NOP: 98

Plus/minus can't work with that small a sample and be reliable, its like using it for the playoffs or other small samples early in the season.

I needed a rant. More coffee please this morning.

Edit (re-edited to 2 man lineups):

Lineup minutes for the most used 2 man lineups:

AD:
1915
1375
1320
1110
878

Westbrook:
1411
1228
998
980
778

Hey bondom, I'm sorry you made a quality post that people should read, but it seems problematic for me to answer broadly. I think I need to leave things be. The one thing I'll say is that I wouldn't have responded at all if you didn't use the exact phrase you did.

Doc, no problem. And sorry for the rant, caught me during my AM coffee at work. It just was sorta the highlight as to some of the issues I have w/ using plus/minus as an overarching single metric. Its flaws are definitely there to me and I think Westbrook's season, and others like it, are cases where its tough to quantify. If you had anything I'd gladly like to hear it, just was getting my POV out there. And please, don't take it as an attack, I really apologize if it was taken that way.