Heres a statistic for you

[Wamu]

So Iggy went on a very bizarre rant after the Warriors game. Rumor has it Draymond kicked him the basket-ball's to knock some sense into him. Not sure if it worked but reportedly Iggy's walking w/ a slight limp now.

 

[tlance]

I disagree. Also, I clearly stated that Lebron is the best player. I also stated that just because he's the best player, doesn't mean he's playing the best.

Westbrook is averaging a triple double. No one else is. That makes him, by many accounts, the best player this year. A strong, logical argument can be made for that. Just because you don't agree, doesn't make you right or anyone else wrong.

By the way, nice Wiggy tactic with the "no knowledgeable person" comment. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they aren't knowledgeable.

It's really not as complicated as you are trying to make it. It's not about who you would rather start a team with, or any of the other nonsense that people try to drag in because they want to discredit a certain player. It's about who is playing the best right now, this season.

Again, I don't even understand why this is a conversation. Whatever happened to just enjoying watching a guy attempt to make history and leave it at that?

Btw, if I'm starting a team I take the same 3, but in a slightly different order:

1. Kawhi: Given the fact that Lebron's defense is down this year and he's 32 (or going to be soon), I'll take Kawhi since he's only 25.

2. Lebron: If I need 1 player to elevate my team to contending status this year (and maybe a couple more) I'm taking Lebron. But if I'm starting a team, he's #2.

3. KD: Still young, probably the best pure scorer in the game and his defense isn't bad. I question if he's a guy who can lead a team to a title though. I'm not sure about his toughness/willingness to demand the ball when he should be demanding it.

Really can't go wrong with any of them.

See that is the thing.

You are talking about the most outstanding performer. That is not the best player. There is a big difference.

Westbrook is the most outstanding player this year. Curry was the last two years. LeBron has been the best PLAYER over that entire span.

There are people on here saying Westbrook is the best basketball player in the world because of his stats. I am simply demonstrating why that isn't true.

 

[trojanfan12]

See that is the thing.

You are talking about the most outstanding performer. That is not the best player. There is a big difference.

Westbrook is the most outstanding player this year. Curry was the last two years. LeBron has been the best PLAYER over that entire span.

There are people on here saying Westbrook is the best basketball player in the world because of his stats. I am simply demonstrating why that isn't true.

I agree, it's semantics really. I've been saying for years that the NBA needs 2 awards. Most Outstanding (for the best player) and Most Valuable (for the guy who means most to his team).

However, the only choice as of now, is Most Valuable. So, while Lebron is the best player, Westbrook and maybe 1 or 2 others are having better years. With the way things are currently set up, the best or most outstanding player is usually the MVP even though he may not truly be the best player in the league.

For me, I have Lebron 3rd of 4th for MVP this year, but he's still the leagues best player.

My MVP race:

1.) Westbrook - He has 32 triple doubles. If he had never gotten a triple double prior to this season and never got another triple double for the rest of his career...he would be 10th all time for career triple doubles. Also, the Thunder is 26-6 when Westbrook gets a triple double, they are 10-23 when he doesn't. That screams MVP.

2.) Harden - I can't stand Harden, but if not for Westbrooks season, Harden would likely be the 1st choice (and some still have him as their first choice) because he has the Rockets looking like they will win at least 50 games (which is far more than anyone would have thought).

3.) Lebron - His value is seen virtually every time he sits out and he's the leagues best player, so he's going to at least be in the convo.

4.) Kawhi - He's the best all around player not named Lebron and a case could be made that he could actually be ahead of Lebron on this list because Lebron's defense has fallen off quite a bit this season.

 

[Inimical]

See that is the thing.

You are talking about the most outstanding performer. That is not the best player. There is a big difference.

Westbrook is the most outstanding player this year. Curry was the last two years. LeBron has been the best PLAYER over that entire span.

There are people on here saying Westbrook is the best basketball player in the world because of his stats. I am simply demonstrating why that isn't true.

how is not the best performer not the be player?

 

[eaglesnut]

Best player that came to Philly this year was Harden.

 

[tlance]

how is not the best performer not the be player?

Because years from now, people will talk about Westbrook's triple double average. In other words, they will talk about his statistical accomplishments.

But, there are multiple players in the league who do more to help their teams win. It is as simple as that. 32-10-10 does not account for any defense or efficiency. Those things matter, a lot.

LeBron, KD and Kawhi are all better all around players.

 

[larryjohn]

Because years from now, people will talk about Westbrook's triple double average. In other words, they will talk about his statistical accomplishments.
But, there are multiple players in the league who do more to help their teams win. It is as simple as that. 32-10-10 does not account for any defense or efficiency. Those things matter, a lot.
LeBron, KD and Kawhi are all better all around players.

Interesting to think if a triple double should win MVP ?

FYI -- Oscar finished 3rd in 1962 in the MVP race in his triple double year.

Russell won it ... Wilt finished 2nd (he did average 50 points / game and 26 rebounds / game).

Elgin finished 4th ... he averaged 38 points / game ... 18 rebounds / game ... 4.5 assists / game. That was the year Elgin could not practice or play during the week because he was in active duty Army. He played 44 games -- only when he could get a weekend pass to play. He scored 61 points in an NBA Final game that year.

 

[tlance]

Interesting to think if a triple double should win MVP ?

FYI -- Oscar finished 3rd in 1962 in the MVP race in his triple double year.

Russell won it ... Wilt finished 2nd (he did average 50 points / game and 26 rebounds / game).

Elgin finished 4th ... he averaged 38 points / game ... 18 rebounds / game ... 4.5 assists / game. That was the year Elgin could not practice or play during the week because he was in active duty Army. He played 44 games -- only when he could get a weekend pass to play. He scored 61 points in an NBA Final game that year.

Clearly that year they voted on the player who they felt contributed most toward winning, not the one who supplied the best stats. In 2017 it is more about the stats.

 

[Inimical]

Because years from now, people will talk about Westbrook's triple double average. In other words, they will talk about his statistical accomplishments.

But, there are multiple players in the league who do more to help their teams win. It is as simple as that. 32-10-10 does not account for any defense or efficiency. Those things matter, a lot.

LeBron, KD and Kawhi are all better all around players.

I just dont know how you could help your team win more by filling up a stat sheet when it really comes down to it. And to be fair, hes doing great for what he has. My argument with Kobe was always this, in the mid 2000's teams didnt have to prepare for the Lakers, they had to prepare for Kobe Bryant. And despite that he had some amazing accomplishments. Russel is in the same category, and if you ask me, so was Iverson.

 

[trojanfan12]

I agree with @tlance that there is more involved in helping a team win than the simple stats. However, as he correctly points out, no one (other than nerds) will be looking at things like efficiency and other "advanced stats." All anyone is going to talk about is how Westbrook was only the 2nd player in NBA history to average a triple double for an entire season.

Also, while efficiency is important, at the end of the day, if you are averaging double figures in points, rebounds and assists...you are helping your team win. Especially in a situation like Westbrook's where he pretty much has to have a triple double for his team to win. 26-6 when he has a triple double vs. 12-23 when he doesn't pretty much begins and ends that argument.

 

[tlance]

I just dont know how you could help your team win more by filling up a stat sheet when it really comes down to it. And to be fair, hes doing great for what he has. My argument with Kobe was always this, in the mid 2000's teams didnt have to prepare for the Lakers, they had to prepare for Kobe Bryant. And despite that he had some amazing accomplishments. Russel is in the same category, and if you ask me, so was Iverson.

Iverson and Westbrook are very comparable.

Iverson also won nothing, and that is no coincidence.

 

[tlance]

I agree with @tlance that there is more involved in helping a team win than the simple stats. However, as he correctly points out, no one (other than nerds) will be looking at things like efficiency and other "advanced stats." All anyone is going to talk about is how Westbrook was only the 2nd player in NBA history to average a triple double for an entire season.

Also, while efficiency is important, at the end of the day, if you are averaging double figures in points, rebounds and assists...you are helping your team win. Especially in a situation like Westbrook's where he pretty much has to have a triple double for his team to win. 26-6 when he has a triple double vs. 12-23 when he doesn't pretty much begins and ends that argument.

He is helping them win, sure.

But, would he help the team even more if he were averaging 23, 12 and 7?

If his shot selection were better, he made the extra pass more often and he did not shirk normal PG defensive responsibilities to go grab extra rebounds, I bet the Thunder would have 4 or 5 more wins than they do right now.

 

[trojanfan12]

He is helping them win, sure.

But, would he help the team even more if he were averaging 23, 12 and 7?

If his shot selection were better, he made the extra pass more often and he did not shirk normal PG defensive responsibilities to go grab extra rebounds, I bet the Thunder would have 4 or 5 more wins than they do right now.

I disagree. I think if were putting up the numbers you suggest, they'd have 4-5 fewer wins.

 

[tlance]

I disagree. I think if were putting up the numbers you suggest, they'd have 4-5 fewer wins.

Not a chance.

I get that his teammates are nothing special, but they are NBA players. Most are capable of making open shots.

If Russ took 7-8 fewer shots a game and avoided some of the most blatant forces, his FG% would be closer to 45% and I am betting his teammates would hit more than 40% of the chances he passed up.

I have always been fine with Russ attacking in transition. That is where he is at his best. But he forces way too much in half court, always has. OKC would be more efficient offensively if he picked his spots better. Better efficiency leads to more production for the team.

 

[tlance]

Case and point:

Last night OKC throttled a good Raptor team on the road.

Russ had 24 points on 8-17 and 16 assists to 2 TOs without playing the 4th quarter. When he tries to do too much as a score, the team struggles. When he plays like this, as a facilitator first, they are clearly at their best.

He should be taking 15-20 shots per game and should really never take more than 25. He simply is not an efficient enough scorer to take that many shots. Hell, if he played like this every night, KD would still be there.

 

[larryjohn]

Case and point:
Last night OKC throttled a good Raptor team on the road.
Russ had 24 points on 8-17 and 16 assists to 2 TOs without playing the 4th quarter. When he tries to do too much as a score, the team struggles. When he plays like this, as a facilitator first, they are clearly at their best.
He should be taking 15-20 shots per game and should really never take more than 25. He simply is not an efficient enough scorer to take that many shots. Hell, if he played like this every night, KD would still be there.

When Russ gets a triple double -- OKC win % is 82%.
When he doesn't -- it is 32%.

 

[trojanfan12]

Not a chance.

I get that his teammates are nothing special, but they are NBA players. Most are capable of making open shots.

If Russ took 7-8 fewer shots a game and avoided some of the most blatant forces, his FG% would be closer to 45% and I am betting his teammates would hit more than 40% of the chances he passed up.

I have always been fine with Russ attacking in transition. That is where he is at his best. But he forces way too much in half court, always has. OKC would be more efficient offensively if he picked his spots better. Better efficiency leads to more production for the team.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think his teammates are even less than nothing special. I think he's stuck with a team like Kobe had when Shaq left.

 

[trojanfan12]

When he tries to do too much as a score, the team struggles. When he plays like this, as a facilitator first, they are clearly at their best.

His team is now 27-6 when he records a triple double. When he doesn't, they are 12-23. He needs to do exactly what he's been doing. You pick one game and act like it's a trend.

Of course there will be games like last night where his teammates play a bit better than their norm. Those Lakers teams that had Kobe and a bunch of guys, played well at times too. However, over the course of the season, they weren't winning games by depending on those other guys to step up. They were winning games by having Kobe score a bunch of points.

OKC wins by having Westbrook doing what he's been doing. Games like last night just mean that every once in a while, he gets a break and doesn't have to work as hard to get the triple double.

 

[tlance]

When Russ gets a triple double -- OKC win % is 82%.
When he doesn't -- it is 32%.

Yes.

I am talking more about him shooting too much. When he shoots too much they lose. He is more likely to triple double when he doesn't, because he is always getting double figure points. The fact that OKC wins when Russ triple doubles actually proves my point about the team being better if he averages 23-12, vs. 35-8.

The rebounds are more incidental. But, I believe OKC's team defense would be better overall if Russ did not always sell out for defensive rebounds. When you are responsible for defending guys like Curry and Lillard, you really shouldn't be completely leaving your man to crash as Westbrook sometimes does. Instead, he should be around the elbow to grab the long carom, but still in position to get back and contest if they give up an offensive board.

 

[larryjohn]

Yes.

I am talking more about him shooting too much. When he shoots too much they lose. He is more likely to triple double when he doesn't, because he is always getting double figure points. The fact that OKC wins when Russ triple doubles actually proves my point about the team being better if he averages 23-12, vs. 35-8.

The rebounds are more incidental. But, I believe OKC's team defense would be better overall if Russ did not always sell out for defensive rebounds. When you are responsible for defending guys like Curry and Lillard, you really shouldn't be completely leaving your man to crash as Westbrook sometimes does. Instead, he should be around the elbow to grab the long carom, but still in position to get back and contest if they give up an offensive board.

When Russ shoots less than 20 times -- their record is 8-7.