Daily Thunder.com

Westbrook 9th in the league on turnovers per game. Durant 7th. Watson 48th Green 52nd. They probably need a little more control, simplicity, restraint.

@Crow

Thanks.

Yeah good exchange, forward looking.

I am not sure you'd want to go Westbrook-Sefolosha a lot- unless you wanted to be a defensive team first. Do they? One or the other can add some balance to Durant but two may be too much- would seem pretty easy for a team to sag off and watch to help on or even outright double Durant that way. Did Presti plan to go Westbrook-Thabo-KD and not expect that to be an issue? How do they defeat that? If Westbrook is really more SG long-term does Thabo really balance and make sense or you need more of a shooter?

Darn, getting late on the east coast here, I look forward to hearing and debating more tomorrow.

@Royce
Very nice win tonight. Always big when a young team like this proves it can make the necessary shots down the stretch. Lost some of the lead, but ground out the win.

@Crow
I agree that he's been allowed too much. Brooks is treating him a lot like Presti treated Durant last year, which is not conducive to his long-term development. Durant was drafted as a stone-cold scorer, and had almost no one else on the team to rely on, so it made sense that he was given so much liberty. Westbrook was meant to be drafted as a defender and complimentary piece to Durant/Green, not as the new number one option. If to compare Westbrook's shots plus non-recorded shots that result in free throws (I never understood why those shots aren't recorded somewhere), you could argue that he's asked to carry more of the scoring load than Durant, which is ridiculous.

Also, I see what you're saying with the designed play, but in a fluid game, it's very hard to implement. What happens if Durant's man doesn't move off him at all? What if a big man blocks the intended passing lane once Westbrook is in the paint? I think you learn to improve in many areas, but certain things are just part of your game. Westbrook is not a gifted passer unless the pass is obvious (even if college this was true). There is a major difference between an AI or Wade, who are expected to take a ton of shots and only pass when there's an obviously open man, and Westbrook, who shouldn't be taking so many shots and too easily loses sight of what his position entails.

I'd like to see Westbrook go the Rondo route as well, but lets not forget that Rondo was never asked to be a scorer until he had 3 hall of famers on his team (and even then only when he's shooting great). Rondo came in as a pass-first PG who was primarily a defender and not a shooter. Westbrook was similar, but was never a pass-first guy. Rondo developed into a quality PG by playing the 3rd or 4th option on the team. With the way Westbrook shoots, that may be the best plan for him as well. Let him ease into it (Durant never had that luxury, Westbrook does), learn what is and is not a good shot, and perhaps while letting someone else take over the duties of running the offense.

Play Westbrook 15-16 min PG and 15-16 min SG and Sefolosha 20 min at defensive SG (and Weaver 8-12 at back up SF) you still have at least 12 minutes for a shooter- young & promising or proven. More when they are on or are needed to be on.

Steve H :
Nice to see Swift getting some playing time. On those rare occasions he actually gets to play, I have liked his game. Gives us some interior defense, and just seems to play smart. If they can signe him to something like 2 years at 2mill per, I’d like to see him back next year.
And is that my boy Sammy? Nice of your mom to let you stay up this late. Tell her I said hi.

Ha ha ha!!!!!

Westbrook at SG given the ball only when the conditions are right probably would be more efficient than Westbrook calling his own takes as often as he thinks he can make it work (which is about always, in his mind. confidence is important but I think you learn to take something off it).

If Westbrook is playing 30% of his time at SG right now. I don't think it would be that dramatic to move him to 50-50. Then you have room for a 30 minute PG if you can find the right one.

Keith, you've framed the question very well. It's something I've been wondering since Westbrook first put on the uniform, and something I've had a few conversations about. It's even something that I've read others comment about. Some go for the "he's definitely not a PG", and some go the "he will grow into the PG" thing like Gilbert Arenas.

The bottom line is that he is a combo guard. There is a prominent place for a combo guard in the NBA. Dwayne Wade is a combo guard. Gilbert Arenas, Jason Terry etc.

Take a look at the per 36 minute comparison of Wade, Iverson and Westbrook in their first seasons:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder....

They each have their strengths and weaknesses, but RW is the youngest. I think it could really go either way. Either we get a great PG and let RW be the shooting guard, or we continue to see if RW can be our PG. Time will tell.

Iverson had his best year playing shooting guard alongside Eric Snow, a pass first point guard. Wade won a championship playing alongside Jason Williams, but he handled the rock a lot. I think we will know the answer this summer when we see who Presti drafts, signs and trades.

I think a starting quality veteran point guard on this team might really be a nice option to have. Somebody like Andre Miller maybe (who is a free agent)or a Kirk Hinrich. But I don't think Presti will go that route. We will see. But it is a very valid question Keith.

Westbrook at SG given the ball only when the conditions are right probably would be more efficent than Westbrook calling his own takes as often as he thinks he can make it work (which is about always, in his mind. confidence is important but I think you learn to take something off it).

He gets inside for shots more and free throws more. And if you believe 82games position assignment this is in a not too small sample to 600+ minutes at SG.

I said it was debatable but I like this side of the discussion pretty well.

The early results of Westbrook at SG vs PG are fairly close and perhaps debatable but that SG is neck and neck says something. He shoots less and makes less turnovers. He rebounds even more. Folks go at him more but they shoot less well. He wins net PER by a bit more. He doesn't win the points battle as much than at PG but that is because of the shot swing on both sides of the ball and I could live with that. Most importantly the team wins more often and has a better point differential.

http://www.82games.com/0809/08OKC3.HTM#bypos

Nice win tonight.

Interesting comparison. I'd rather Westbrook follow Rondo than Iverson style-wise and I think he is thinking too much like an Iverson, has been allowed to do so.

But maybe the way to work it is to have Westbrook drive early but with specific play design so he knows in advance where his planned pass a or b is instead of having to figure it out on his own.

Westbrook drive, draws the big and then passes back to Durant is probably far better conceptually than the reverse. Durant can get his shot on most anywhere but if the first big to react had to react to Westbrook that might give Durant a bit more space or time.

@Crow

Teams definitely have a tendency to sag off Westbrook, daring him to hit his outside shots. As it can be seen, it tends to work pretty effectively, as he shoots poorly and the defender can adjust much easier to his drives (though he's still a demon when slashing). The bigger problem is that while his ability to get into the paint easily should open up a lot of easy shots for teammates, he struggles to find them and make a good pass.

I just realized I forgot the numbers I had mentioned.

Westbrook:
40%FG 29%3-pt 81%FT 5apg 5.3FT/g 1.3stl 4.7rpg

Iverson (01-02, statistically least efficient year):
40%FG 29%3-pt 81%FT 5.5apg 10FT/g 2.8stl 4.5rpg

It's kind of eerie. Allen Iverson is another fantastic basketball player who never learned to shoot efficiently and who started out as a PG. He made a hall of fame career, though, being a SG when coaches realized that he's not really a 1.

I think a big problem is that Westbrook is being asked to go against his makeup. He's given the ball and told to have at it all the time, but he's incredibly inefficient (doesn't even crack the top 40 of TS% for just PGs). The last thing a team with offensive efficiency problems should do is put the ball in the hands of one of their least efficient players all the time (Westbrook is ahead of only Atkins, Wilkins, and Watson in adjusted FG%). Think how much more effective Westbrook could be if, instead of taking a ton of shots and being asked to play against his weakness (finding open players and hitting them with the ball), he was asked to primarily defend and have plays run for him that get him much higher percentage shots? A PG with better vision and a three point shot could do that for him.

With Durant as #1 and dribble drive a dominant theme of the offense you don't want sag off the PG or side or fronting bigs which both protect the lane.

If you sag off a traditional PG with a 3 pt game or react to penetration they can hit that 3 or survey the scene and make the pass to the open guy. Westbrook's first strength is drive the lane rather than these skills. You generally don't drive the lane then kick back and drive the lane again for big results.

I assume the defense does better when they sag off Westbrook than play him tight but those who have seen more can say better for him aand for Durant and team as whole.

Eventually they need more post game too. Sophisticated, well timed and spaced post game.

Just a quick idea, and some numbers to think about. Westbrook is a very serviceable PG for the Thunder. His passing and court vision leave a lot to be desired, but his ability to score and drive make him better than the other option (Watson). The question, as it has been all year, is if Westbrook is really a PG. I had thought so earlier, but as time has passed, I've lost that belief.

Name me one good PG with as absent an outside shot as Wesbrook who also has a hard time finding teammates and making good passes? The fact is, Westbrook's strengths (ability to drive and finish, drawing fouls, defense) and weaknesses (vision, passing, outside shot) are the exact things you'd find not in a good PG, but in a good SG. If you think about it, most of the big name scoring PGs are guys with height or defensive shortcomings that keep them from playing SG.

Now, getting an outside shot is something anyone can do, but will Westbrook ever be the guy that makes his teammates better, or will he always be a volume shooter who's best game comes when he's not expected to pass (think AI if he played defense)? This is the way I see it. If Westbrook gets in the gym hard over the summer and comes out with a shot that keeps defenders from sagging off him 5 feet without fear, and no PG can be gotten at good value with either first rounder, keep the Westbrook as PG experiment alive. However, if he's still a one dimensional scorer who lacks the intangibles of a PG, then put at the 2 (where he may very well be more productive) and get someone else to replace him. In a buyer's market, the Thunder are going to have a lot of options. I hope they make the most of them.

Martz it is the first question first when you start a design but ultimately the latter question that needs a specific answer since I am not rigid about the answer to the first question. I assume Presti purposely choose the slasher / defender and thinks it will work well with what else he has in mind. Whatever that is. I assume he believes Westbrook will become more traditional and he probably will with experience but you probably are adding difficulty if what you really want is for him to be traditional PG first.

Crow :Is Westbrook a difference maker or is Conley's style better? No clear cut answer.

Crow, can you clarify something? When you ask "is Conley's style better?" are you asking if a more traditional point guard might be better than a hair-on-fire slasher, or are you asking whether Conley is a better PG than Westbrook?

What are the Griz doing right and wrong?

Conley can pass, is low turnovers, hits the 3 but generally takes less than 10 shots a game.

Mayo is most of what most GMs seem to want in a SG and probably gets better, maybe a lot.

Gay is alright but just alright.

Warrick isn't really a starter or a team player but he can do some things when he is on.

Millicic and Gasol are decent. Arthur might be after he learns / adjusts.

But it hasn't added up to much in any way. The bench is weak. The coaching never above average.

What does it mean for the Thunder? Yeah you need a go to guy who is really good. Durant fills that role. Gay is nothing special on team defense and is never going to inspire anybody in that way. Durant is too much like Gay in that way. Coaching is not a small housekeeping deal. It is huge. Green is better than Warrick but how much and how much is it the same position / role issue? Is Westbrook a difference maker or is Conley style better? No clear cut answer. See how it comes out in the wash. Gasol vs Kristic? Other bigs vs other bigs? Nothing special compared to strong teams. Bench? Too early to say.

I wouldn't be super hopeful as a Griz fan. But yeah it could come together. More likely not but most things could come together.

Thabo/Weaver is somewhat in the Bowen vein but is Westbrook/Durant/Green Parker/Ginobili/Duncan like in sum at all? Do Thabo/Weaver balance the Thunder big 3 offense somewhat with defense on does it as much or more mean that the offense doesn't supercharge? Which effect will be greater Green at PF on the offense or the defense? Does he become a 2 way strong player? When?

Nice to see Swift getting some playing time. On those rare occasions he actually gets to play, I have liked his game. Gives us some interior defense, and just seems to play smart. If they can signe him to something like 2 years at 2mill per, I'd like to see him back next year.
And is that my boy Sammy? Nice of your mom to let you stay up this late. Tell her I said hi.

Presti is trying to orchestrate a delicate balance- offense and defense and maybe eventualy inside / outside and maybe it eventually comes together and works but right now it still seems messy and unclear what parts are going to give positive edge and which parts are going to fall short and hinder the other parts.

Coaching is hard when you have to ask what system do Presti's players fit? You don't or at least shouldn't run with a non-natural PG. You probably don't shoot well if you don't have a pure shooting SG. You don't play tough D with an undersized PF. A 7 footer is nice but how much are they really doing to use him?

Nuts, Durant is out for two weeks. That's too bad.

Thanks jk! Yours too!

Good point jk. There was a pretty good improvement on the defensive end when Adams came on board, but it's fallen off a bit lately. A lot of it has to do with the Thunder playing some really good opponents lately. First thing Brooks did was take Mark Bryant and bump him down and bring Adams in. So like you said, he's trying to fill out a staff on the fly.

Sam, your insights are just amazing.

One other thing that falls in the "give him another year" category is that Brooks had to go with PJ's staff. I know that he added Adams, but the rest of the guys on his bench are not his own.

I think Adams has been huge for us, although it hasn't shown lately, I think he did a good job of quickly putting a band-aid on an open sore. If Brooks could make one more staff addition that could have a similar impact then you may see a marked improvement next year, but I'm not sold yet and I don't think Presit is either.

As for my Chandler flip-flop, I don't know. I guess I just had a stroke moment.

Sorry Royce. I think the Thunder are an excellent franchise and Kevin Durant is probably going to win multiple NBA Finals MVP awards. Please don't ban me!

@Sam
Why do you even waste your time here Sam? Why? You're trolling and you're very, very near from getting an IP ban. Come to talk basketball or go away.

And why is it when you get your chops busted (i.e. saying the Chandler deal was a good move, and then when it actually happened going 180 and saying it was stupid and laughing at it), you run away?

1. Aubrey is being sued by Chesapeake shareholders for a fraudulent securities disclosure. His classiness continues to astound me.

2. Joe Smith is nearing a buyout?! Wait a minute - I thought he loved OKC and never wanted to leave in a million years? Royce, wasn't that your theory? Maybe the lesson is that what players say to the local media isn't necessarily how they really feel. And maybe that means that Kevin Durant doesn't actually want to finish his career in OKC. Shocking, I know.

If Brooks coaching has positives it is 3 guys being the best they can be on offense whether it works for the team well or not, rebounding and not fouling a lot (as I said before maybe too little given the eFG% they give up this way), a still modest 3 point game and a pretty good rate of getting to the line. How much of that is just the players and how much is coach enhanced?

He is not the guy to fix the defense and Ron Adams doesn't appear to beeither. With team offense near the bottom too I'd look around no matter how well he fits and tries.

But Presti gave PJ a second chance so he will probably give Brooks a second chance too. Probably would be hard for him to admit he made another weak coaching choice so soon.

Of course Westbrook, Durant, Green love Brooks they can do anything they want on offense and get away with it. They play shoot it out and usually have weak team defense and probably get mostly enouragement not grief. There is a middle or mixed ground of encouragement and critique / pressure that I am not sure Brooks has estblished or will establish.

Absolutely. If the team loses its competitive edge then you've got to rethink it. And like you said, this is Brooks' first gig as the head man so he's learning too.

Thanks guys,

I tend to agree that Brooks should be the coach next year. But if we finish the season with something like only 5 more victories, I'm not sure if we can keep him because the stench of losing will be so strong. I also think that his shortcomings as a late-game coach can be rectified with some film study in the offseason.

Its something to keep an eye on.

I'm a fan.

The thing with Brooks is that he basically had to undo what P.J. had done. He had to win the team back and get them playing hard and playing with intensity. I think he's a perfect match for our youthful team.

1) There's going to be rough nights for a rookie point guard and we're going to have to deal with Westbrook getting wild. Last night there wasn't a lot of option. I don't think there's any doubt how far Russell has come and largely that improvement came under Brooks. Just look at his numbers by month.

2) I get that but I think a lot of the reason we were even close in those games were because of the changes Brooks has made. We've been competitive nearly EVERY night and that wasn't the case with P.J. Brooks has these guys ready to play and excited to play every night.

3) That's late game NBA offense when you have a lead. The problem was typically that would go to Durant, but obviously he wasn't there. That's what the Lakers did with Kobe but the thing was Kobe knocked down the shots and we missed.

4) I'm not even one that's convinced that the switch to SF is what set set Durant on fire. I think that's part of it but I also think that there's more "flow" to the offense and it's giving Durant a lot more looks. When he was struggling at the two, it was because there was so much standing around that most of his shots came off one dribble or a crappy screen. Now he's finding a lot more clear lanes to work with and more open jumpers in rhythm.

I like Brooks. I like the way he handles himself and I think the team loves him. Maybe you go out and find a new coach and maybe things get better, but maybe you set yourself back more with another mistake. I don't think anyone would say that the Thunder is headed in the wrong direction now. Continuity is an important thing, especially for a young team. I say keep Brooks, at least through next year.

My opinion of Brooks sort of has layers to it. On one hand, if you aren't going to keep Brooks, then you have to look at who is out there that is better. There are like 7 teams that will be looking for new coaches this off season. Only a few will re-sign their interim coach. Guys like Flip Saunders and Avery Johnson will get phone calls from teams that want to spend 5 mil a year on a coach, but that may not be too many. So is Brooks as good as anyone out there that is unemployed....your guess is as good as mine. First time coaches don't always do that great. Most of them are shaky for awhile. Brooks to me seems as completely qualified and ready for the full time job as any of the not "big name" coaches out there. What I mean is that a guy like Dwayne Casey, or Reggie Theus, or whoever you might get that doesn't have a lot of experience wouldn't to me really be an upgrade.

A guy like Eddie Jordan has coached in the playoffs, but he's also recently fired. Our former coach Bob Hill coached San Antonio to 60 wins one year, but couldn't do anything with the Sonics. It's such a crap shoot if you don't really get one of those proven winner kind of guys like Saunders or Avery. Does OKC want to do that? Not sure. Those two guys may actually be bad for OKC, putting Wins and losses over chemistry and player development.

Wow, I just wrote a lot and not sure I said anything tangible. I guess I would prefer to keep Brooks on a short, cheap contract next year and let him have a training camp and get his nuance in there.

Royce and I chatted one time and he was really fired up about Brooks; I think he even wrote something about how OKC should remove the interim tag. I asked him if he would feel differently if OKC went on a twelve game losing streak. Now we are in a 7 game losing streak and maybe some of the enthusiasm has waned, but February's schedule has been tough, and we did lose D-Mase.

Brooks to me is a C+ coach. If we finish strong maybe that moves to a B-, but that also raises his asking price.

Royce and Joe,

What are your guys' thoughts on Scotty Brooks? I'm not on his bandwagon as much as some people are. Here are some reasons.
1) RW's development has stalled over the past 6 weeks, and I don't think he's grasped the idea of being a PG with last night being the best example.
2) We're now 3-9 in games decided by 3 points or less and one of those wins was with P.J. To me that record falls largely on the head coach. While I would expect our record because of our youth to be under .500 (5-7), Scott Brooks hasn't been great in the final stages of games.
3) Again, this can be blamed on our youth, but our 4th quarter offense stalls on far too many occasions. Last night, we repeatedly let Earl stand with the ball in his hands 35 feet from the hoop, only to pass it to RW or Green with 6 ticks on shot clock.
4) One can argue that Durant's growth was inveitable once he was switched to the SF position and because of just how naturally gifted he is.

I do love how our guys play hard every night and rarely get blown out, I'm not sure if that's good enough to take us to the next level.

Thoughts?

I was wondering that too. With Smith supposedly near a buyout, if he goes with Nick and Krstic then the lone big man off the bench is Malik Rose.

Maybe he plays Thabo at the three and starts Weaver. But I agree about the Mayo matchup. I think Thabo can handle him well. Mayo shouldn't get a single clean look tonight with Thabo's length in his face.

I really like the Thabo/Mayo matchup alot for us. Thabo is bigger, stronger and equally fast. Mayo doesn't really have a "bag of tricks" like Kobe does. He is pretty much a jumpshooter and that's about it. I think Thabo can neutralize OJ.

Gay, we can hope, falls in love with his jumpshot and continues to fire away. He can shoot the Grizz right out of the game. We need to make sure and keep Green out of foul trouble, so I would try and keep him off of Gay as much as possible. And on the other side, post up Gay if he's matched up with Green and see if we can get him in foul trouble. He is no where near strong enough to battle Green in the paint.

I wonder if Brooks starts two bigs (colly and Krstic) and moves Green to the three like he opened up the second half last night, or if he goes one big and sort of goes with three guards like Westbrook, Weaver, Thabo...