Comments on: Russell Westbrook: Logical thinking vs. intuition http://www.dailythunder.com/2009/04/russell-westbrook-logical-thinking-vs-intuition/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:10:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Crow http://www.dailythunder.com/2009/04/russell-westbrook-logical-thinking-vs-intuition/comment-page-1/#comment-4378 Crow Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:02:03 +0000 http://www.dailythunder.com/?p=1747#comment-4378 Portland right now is 2 stars and 5 good to super role players. Who fit. Portland right now is 2 stars and 5 good to super role players. Who fit.

]]> By: C http://www.dailythunder.com/2009/04/russell-westbrook-logical-thinking-vs-intuition/comment-page-1/#comment-4372 C Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:11:08 +0000 http://www.dailythunder.com/?p=1747#comment-4372 Durant is a scorer first. Westbrook and Green may be thinking that way too much now compared to where they might fit best long-term. Maybe it is good experience for later, maybe it will be a problem. Up to the players and coaches to work the roles out that make the team win. If next 1-2 top picks are scorers first too that will be a lot. Sometimes many is too many but it could work. Especially if they are high FG%, outside or inside. Certainly need Livingston, Weaver, Sefolosha, White, Collison and Krstic to fill other roles. Choose to put 3 or more scorers on court then you are trying to win a shoot-out. 2 role players probably aren't going to enough to have good D or mayb eeven strong team offense. 3 role players and you are probably going to be short on offense and they probably won't sit the offensive guys that much. Need one or more of the scorers to good role player / defenders too. Westbrook is the most likely. one more would help. If not Green then one of the next 2 core pieces added. Durant is a scorer first. Westbrook and Green may be thinking that way too much now compared to where they might fit best long-term. Maybe it is good experience for later, maybe it will be a problem. Up to the players and coaches to work the roles out that make the team win. If next 1-2 top picks are scorers first too that will be a lot. Sometimes many is too many but it could work. Especially if they are high FG%, outside or inside. Certainly need Livingston, Weaver, Sefolosha, White, Collison and Krstic to fill other roles. Choose to put 3 or more scorers on court then you are trying to win a shoot-out. 2 role players probably aren’t going to enough to have good D or mayb eeven strong team offense. 3 role players and you are probably going to be short on offense and they probably won’t sit the offensive guys that much. Need one or more of the scorers to good role player / defenders too. Westbrook is the most likely. one more would help. If not Green then one of the next 2 core pieces added.

]]> By: Crow http://www.dailythunder.com/2009/04/russell-westbrook-logical-thinking-vs-intuition/comment-page-1/#comment-4371 Crow Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:40:40 +0000 http://www.dailythunder.com/?p=1747#comment-4371 Except... Westbrook. But is he a star or a role player or a bit of both? I guess that gets back to the main point of the thread. If he becomes an all-star that will make it easier on Durant. And another star would help. And Green being a hybrid star / role player and you could have something special. Analysis now is with the painting half-done. Year 4 it should be pretty much in focus. Maybe not done, but done enough to know if it is going to be average, good or great. Except… Westbrook. But is he a star or a role player or a bit of both? I guess that gets back to the main point of the thread. If he becomes an all-star that will make it easier on Durant. And another star would help. And Green being a hybrid star / role player and you could have something special. Analysis now is with the painting half-done. Year 4 it should be pretty much in focus. Maybe not done, but done enough to know if it is going to be average, good or great.

]]> By: Crow http://www.dailythunder.com/2009/04/russell-westbrook-logical-thinking-vs-intuition/comment-page-1/#comment-4370 Crow Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:35:58 +0000 http://www.dailythunder.com/?p=1747#comment-4370 A true star should have a good adjusted +/- but you can try to use role players to optimize the team result. You need the right role players and mix especially if the star isn't 2 way strong and strong on adjusted. Role players shouldeither be good or neutral on adjusted or at least close to neutral. A poor adjusted on a role player you should change the role player. For the Thunder so far the role players are modestly nice to modestly weak. Durant has the most room for improvement but they also do not have any dynamite role players yet. A true star should have a good adjusted +/- but you can try to use role players to optimize the team result. You need the right role players and mix especially if the star isn’t 2 way strong and strong on adjusted. Role players shouldeither be good or neutral on adjusted or at least close to neutral. A poor adjusted on a role player you should change the role player. For the Thunder so far the role players are modestly nice to modestly weak. Durant has the most room for improvement but they also do not have any dynamite role players yet.

]]> By: Crow http://www.dailythunder.com/2009/04/russell-westbrook-logical-thinking-vs-intuition/comment-page-1/#comment-4369 Crow Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:12:35 +0000 http://www.dailythunder.com/?p=1747#comment-4369 Speaking of Abdur-Rahim. I compared Green to him using the stats for each in his 2nd year http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/tiny.cgi?id=FOWeT Pretty close. Green as #2 or #3 probably has some pretty good potential, Maybe more than Abdur-Rahim as a #1. Abdur-Rahim wasn't a 2 way strong player. Green isn't either yet but there is still time and some basis for hope. Ideally you'd want to bounce him between SF and PF to get him the best match-ups and avoid the hard ones on offense and / or defense. With a roster of many options a good coach might be able to choreograph the right role / right opportunities to get the right results out of him and the others. Might. Or he might always be facing get this, give up this tradeoffs and stall out short of goal. Speaking of Abdur-Rahim. I compared Green to him using the stats for each in his 2nd year
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/tiny.cgi?id=FOWeT
Pretty close.
Green as #2 or #3 probably has some pretty good potential, Maybe more than Abdur-Rahim as a #1.
Abdur-Rahim wasn’t a 2 way strong player. Green isn’t either yet but there is still time and some basis for hope. Ideally you’d want to bounce him between SF and PF to get him the best match-ups and avoid the hard ones on offense and / or defense. With a roster of many options a good coach might be able to choreograph the right role / right opportunities to get the right results out of him and the others. Might. Or he might always be facing get this, give up this tradeoffs and stall out short of goal.

]]> By: Crow http://www.dailythunder.com/2009/04/russell-westbrook-logical-thinking-vs-intuition/comment-page-1/#comment-4368 Crow Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:59:16 +0000 http://www.dailythunder.com/?p=1747#comment-4368 We probably agree more than we disagree. Lineups need different functions fulfilled: Lineups need air intake / fuel (rebounds), power from an engine (scoring), steering (assists), various forms of protection (defense). You need a balance of enough of each. The difference between a poor, average, good and a great car is the quality of the parts and the quality of the matching of them for top performance. There is a role for Durant as lead scorer, especially in clutch time (end of shot clock) and crunch time (end of game). Westbrook attacking the defense can be quite useful, especially as he get more experienced and precise. Green can be a versatile scorer. Thabo can a stopper. Weaver a secondary passer / glue guy. On and on. Presti's roster has a logical mix of types but they still have to fit together and make a good car, something more than the parts, something magical. We probably agree more than we disagree.

Lineups need different functions fulfilled:

Lineups need air intake / fuel (rebounds), power from an engine (scoring), steering (assists), various forms of protection (defense).

You need a balance of enough of each. The difference between a poor, average, good and a great car is the quality of the parts and the quality of the matching of them for top performance.

There is a role for Durant as lead scorer, especially in clutch time (end of shot clock) and crunch time (end of game). Westbrook attacking the defense can be quite useful, especially as he get more experienced and precise. Green can be a versatile scorer. Thabo can a stopper. Weaver a secondary passer / glue guy. On and on. Presti’s roster has a logical mix of types but they still have to fit together and make a good car, something more than the parts, something magical.

]]> By: Royce http://www.dailythunder.com/2009/04/russell-westbrook-logical-thinking-vs-intuition/comment-page-1/#comment-4355 Royce Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:16:28 +0000 http://www.dailythunder.com/?p=1747#comment-4355 <a href="#comment-4353" rel="nofollow">@John Mietus</a> Right on. Hench why +/- can be limiting. Somebody like Luke Walton can have a stellar +/-, but that's because he's on the floor with Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol for the most of his minutes. But put him on the Kings, and Walton's probably a big negative. Plus/minus is a great stat, but common sense has to play a part in it. Crow often points out +/- groups - what players did as a unit. I think that's a better way. A group of Westbrook, Weaver, Durant, Green and Krstic may have a better score than Atkins, Weaver, Durant Green and Krstic. That says something. And my comments at the top were just a way to try and say broadly, "Don't get so wrapped up in box scores that you miss how good a guy is." @John Mietus
Right on. Hench why +/- can be limiting. Somebody like Luke Walton can have a stellar +/-, but that’s because he’s on the floor with Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol for the most of his minutes. But put him on the Kings, and Walton’s probably a big negative. Plus/minus is a great stat, but common sense has to play a part in it.

Crow often points out +/- groups – what players did as a unit. I think that’s a better way. A group of Westbrook, Weaver, Durant, Green and Krstic may have a better score than Atkins, Weaver, Durant Green and Krstic. That says something.

And my comments at the top were just a way to try and say broadly, “Don’t get so wrapped up in box scores that you miss how good a guy is.”

]]> By: John Mietus http://www.dailythunder.com/2009/04/russell-westbrook-logical-thinking-vs-intuition/comment-page-1/#comment-4353 John Mietus Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:27:54 +0000 http://www.dailythunder.com/?p=1747#comment-4353 I think some of Royce's comments about my article are slightly misdirected. I'm not saying Russell's just a "baller", I'm saying that there is more to basketball than the box score. And as some of the readers have pointed out, the box score and more complex statistics are two important ways of measuring performance. But it is also important to see the player and gauge his effectiveness as one part of a team. "Best" player on the planet has no relevant meaning because basketball is not a one-on-one game. It's more important to have the best team. And you can argue all day and all night that the best "players" tend to be on the best teams, but that's subjectively true only because we judge players by how well their team does. Nobody believes Shareef Abdur-Rahim was one of the best players on the planet during his long career. Why? Because for all his statistical greatness, he never brought his team success. Whereas Kobe and Lebron receive the plaudits for not only putting up individual numbers, but also being the engines behind two top tier teams. Much of what lies behind the numbers can be attributed to team success, even if the numbers themselves are good. I think some of Royce’s comments about my article are slightly misdirected. I’m not saying Russell’s just a “baller”, I’m saying that there is more to basketball than the box score. And as some of the readers have pointed out, the box score and more complex statistics are two important ways of measuring performance. But it is also important to see the player and gauge his effectiveness as one part of a team. “Best” player on the planet has no relevant meaning because basketball is not a one-on-one game. It’s more important to have the best team. And you can argue all day and all night that the best “players” tend to be on the best teams, but that’s subjectively true only because we judge players by how well their team does. Nobody believes Shareef Abdur-Rahim was one of the best players on the planet during his long career. Why? Because for all his statistical greatness, he never brought his team success. Whereas Kobe and Lebron receive the plaudits for not only putting up individual numbers, but also being the engines behind two top tier teams. Much of what lies behind the numbers can be attributed to team success, even if the numbers themselves are good.

]]> By: Keith http://www.dailythunder.com/2009/04/russell-westbrook-logical-thinking-vs-intuition/comment-page-1/#comment-4349 Keith Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:36:30 +0000 http://www.dailythunder.com/?p=1747#comment-4349 <a href="#comment-4340" rel="nofollow">@Clark Matthews</a> Even by your definition I would have to disagree with you about Wade and Lebron playing off the ball. There is a very good reason that those players lead their team in assists, assists per minute, and assist %. Maybe they don't dribble up the court everytime, but they certainly play the point. Their "ball-hogging" doesn't hurt the team because one, they are very efficient scorers (moreso than almost any other PG) and two, their scoring prowess opens up opportunities for their less capable teammates. I'm actually not disagreeing with you that Westbrook should play the two (his game is more suited for that), just your comparison. If he turns into Dwyane Wade, then we have a find PG, just like Tony Parker, Lebron James, and Chauncey Billups. The thing is, I don't think he's quite as good as Wade and Lebron (whose talents transcend listed position). I think Westbrook is a great player, just one that should be utilized more effectively. @Clark Matthews
Even by your definition I would have to disagree with you about Wade and Lebron playing off the ball. There is a very good reason that those players lead their team in assists, assists per minute, and assist %. Maybe they don’t dribble up the court everytime, but they certainly play the point. Their “ball-hogging” doesn’t hurt the team because one, they are very efficient scorers (moreso than almost any other PG) and two, their scoring prowess opens up opportunities for their less capable teammates.

I’m actually not disagreeing with you that Westbrook should play the two (his game is more suited for that), just your comparison. If he turns into Dwyane Wade, then we have a find PG, just like Tony Parker, Lebron James, and Chauncey Billups. The thing is, I don’t think he’s quite as good as Wade and Lebron (whose talents transcend listed position). I think Westbrook is a great player, just one that should be utilized more effectively.

]]> By: Clark Matthews http://www.dailythunder.com/2009/04/russell-westbrook-logical-thinking-vs-intuition/comment-page-1/#comment-4340 Clark Matthews Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:04:11 +0000 http://www.dailythunder.com/?p=1747#comment-4340 <a href="#comment-4321" rel="nofollow">@Keith </a> We can parse the meaning of "off the ball", but I think we all have to agree that the point guard runs the offense and typically brings the ball up the floor. Neither Dwyane Wade or LeBron James play that role in their offense. They touch the ball almost every possession, but that is at the discretion of the point guard who is aware that their team's best shot at scoring is giving those guys the ball. Those two players have a role that expects them to be selfish when they have the ball. If they were point guards, as Russell Westbrook is being expected to do, their ball hogging would make them as team cancer-y as Stephon Marbury or Allen Iverson when he's at the point. Can we all agree that Westbrook's skill set is best served when he blows by his opponent or finishes an alley oop? Can we all agree that Westbrook doesn't show much proclivity for finding teammates on pick and rolls, pick and pops, cutting to the basket, or initiating alley oops? Personally, I think Westbrooks mindset and skillset mirror what you should expect from a shooting guard and just like when P.J. Carlesimo tried to force Kevin Durant, who is a more natural forward, into the two, forcing Westbrook into the one is not ideal for him or the team. @Keith We can parse the meaning of “off the ball”, but I think we all have to agree that the point guard runs the offense and typically brings the ball up the floor. Neither Dwyane Wade or LeBron James play that role in their offense. They touch the ball almost every possession, but that is at the discretion of the point guard who is aware that their team’s best shot at scoring is giving those guys the ball.

Those two players have a role that expects them to be selfish when they have the ball. If they were point guards, as Russell Westbrook is being expected to do, their ball hogging would make them as team cancer-y as Stephon Marbury or Allen Iverson when he’s at the point.

Can we all agree that Westbrook’s skill set is best served when he blows by his opponent or finishes an alley oop? Can we all agree that Westbrook doesn’t show much proclivity for finding teammates on pick and rolls, pick and pops, cutting to the basket, or initiating alley oops? Personally, I think Westbrooks mindset and skillset mirror what you should expect from a shooting guard and just like when P.J. Carlesimo tried to force Kevin Durant, who is a more natural forward, into the two, forcing Westbrook into the one is not ideal for him or the team.

]]>