- Thread starter
- #1
logic
Well-Known Member
Does anyone still argue that the Thunder should have thrown their money at Harden rather than paying Ibaka?
I do. Pretty sure they could've found a shot blocking big in the last 2 seasons
Really, shot blockers of that caliber don't just grow on trees. He is the top shot blocker in the league and one of 4 who average more than 2 a game. He changes the way the entire OKC defense plays. AND he is decent n offense. Harden, while great at offense, is a serious liability on defense. And guards who can put the ball in the bucket and play zero defense do pretty much grow on trees, at least way more common than quality big men. And OKC clearly needs the defensive side a lot more than more scoring ability and another guy who needs the ball in his hands.
You can teach a player to play great defense, most of it comes by exerting effort. You can't teach a player to score 25 PPG the way Harden does.
Yes, because my argument was never Ibaka over Harden. It was OKC messed up and panicked. It's two fold.
1) They overpaid Perkins. He's the one that should have been ousted and then find a way to spread the cash around to keep both Ibaka and Harden. It was possible. But OKC overvalues Perk and broke up a 4 person core that would have been damn near unbeatable.
2) OKC panicked on the trade. There was no reason to trade Harden when they did and the result was they got lowballed. At any time over that season, you're telling me they couldn't have gotten a better deal?
It was botched. Period. Whether they recover from it is a different thing all together.
Harden might be the worst defender in the league, that is not an exaggeration.
I can't believe this was a serious question. If anything this series shows how right the Thunder were to go with Ibaka. Its a moot point though because Harden straight up did not want to stay in KDs and Westbrooks shadows, it wasn't happening. The Thunder had no choice, Harden might be the worst defender in the league, that is not an exaggeration.
How does this series show anything?
Without Ibaka give up 122 and 112. With Ibaka 97 and 92. Complete transformation of the defense played by OKC.
We have no data how the Thunder would have performed versus SA with Harden.
This may be true, but we have ample evidence that Harden plays no defense which has really been the swing for OKC. Also, even with Harden's prolific scoring he would not have made up the loss differential in games 1 and 2.
It is ridiculous.
Maybe with Harden, they go 73-9....never get taken to game 7 versus a 7 seed.....
So they would have been the #1 seed instead of the #2 and had homecourt versus SA, they still would need defense.
Harden is an all-NBA player who is more valuable overall.
Harden is an all-NBA scorer. By the stats I've looked at their value is very close, Harden may have a marginal edge.
Ibaka has a specific limited skillset that (while matching up well vs SA) is nowhere near as versatile.
This may be true on the offensive end, but not on defense. And Ibaka is not as inept at offense as Harden is at defense.
Ibaka will be less than completely and utterly useless versus Indiana.
I have to disagree. Slowing down David West would be a huge factor against Indiana. And drawing him out of the paint with Serge's midrange jumper.
Ibaka will be marginalized more versus Miami.
Miami does get penetration and is affected by shot blockers.
Harden excels versus SA.
Harden would be an Indiana killer.
But would allow Stevenson to match him.
Harden would have issues with Miami.