Excellent stuff here emailed in by a reader. I’m a bit of a stat guy myself, but I don’t think there’s anything that can judge “Can the guy ball?” And like I wrote about last week, Russell Westbrook can absolutely ball. Here’s a better way of saying it.
By John Mietus
One key element little discussed in this year’s NBA rookie of the year race is the importance of intuitive feel for the game, basketball genius for lack of better term. Some coaches and statisticians try to refer to this “feel” as Basketball IQ, but that attempts to quantify with numbers (high or low) a player’s innate feel for the game. The truth of the matter is that most great basketball players simply feel the game out, and no statistical measure accurately captures the beauty or volatility of such play. That’s why team’s can write PER measurements on Ricky Rubio or Larry Bird without ever fully realizing the “win potential” of either player.
I’m not always a fan of what Charley Rosen, the FoxSports.com NBA writer, says about basketball. Rosen tends to be negative to the point of absurdity when discussing the greatest basketball players in the world, but he makes valid points on the contributions of players in regards to a team concept. Rosen points out that 90 percent of the players on the court at any given time of a game do not hold onto the basketball. That implies that 90 percent of the game happens away from the ball. And even in the NBA, even in a league designed to be played one-on-one, plenty of opportunity for improvisation and contribution occurs when a player does not actually have the basketball in their hands. It goes well beyond, “Is this guy setting a screen where he should be?”, and has more to do with a feel for spacing, for angles, for opportunities to make plays. It happens on both ends of the floor and allows an intuitive player to separate himself from players of average ability. But can it be measured? Not concretely. It can only be felt.
I want to talk about Russell Westbrook and the critical measures of a player’s capability. Watching Russell play this year on television or live and you can see the joy of his game. He’s like a child who has yet to realize all the limitations and boxes life will attempt to put around him. People get concerned over his turnovers or his “low” shooting percentage but they may miss his bouncy athleticism, his intuitive ability to make plays, his general court sense. Russell’s been out trying things this year, experimenting, pushing the boundaries of statistical analysis.
The statisticians get excited because they see Russell putting up big rebounding numbers “for a guard” or having games with eight assists, but they might miss the force of his mind behind those stats. Russell is a non-traditional player. He goes out and plays, plays hard, and plays intuitively. The plays he makes as a point guard compare to the plays a young Jason Kidd made, perhaps without the same passing ability but with the same general feel. Russell also plays defense with determination, intelligence, elite level athleticism, a dimension of basketball that PER fails to even consider.
So how do you convince the stat heads that a player like Russell has value? Well for starters, the raw data that Westbrook delivers isn’t bad either. He’s a leading candidate for Rookie of the Year even with certain stat categories being less than ideal. But eventually the logical thinkers are going to want the data to match the “feel” for the game. By calling turnovers simple mistakes instead of measuring ability and intent, PER geeks get lost in the web of logic at the expense of genius.
Russell is going to help the Thunder win games. He’s going to likely be an All-Star in the future. But his contributions will (hopefully) always be non-traditional. He gets out of the logical/rational realm and into an emotional game. He’s got a chance to be special not because of his raw contributions to a box score, but because of his innate sense of play-making. (It’s important not to confuse “play-making” with something like “running the pick and roll and finding the open shooter”… etc., play-making in this sense means an all-court ability to read and feel the game and react instinctively). If the coaching staff or if criticism cages Russell’s play-making ability then a great gift will be lost.
Thunder Fans: There’s no such thing as a “rookie mistake” in basketball. Only a “mistake”. Russell isn’t making mistakes so much as he is pushing the envelope, the limits of on court creativity. A bigger mistake would be trying to harness Westbrook and eliminate his intuitive capability. It would be counter-productive now to rein him in, probably causing confusion for Westbrook. Russell represents the fine line between a “practice” player and a gamer. A practice player can run through all the plays in practice, hit his spots, shoot when it’s his turn and succeed on a regular basis. But a gamer can perform when the lights come on at night and the curtain goes up. A gamer can improvise and make magic out of simple sport. A gamer can remove the box score from the hands of stat geeks everywhere and bring it back to where it belongs: a tool but not a mandate. A gamer can win under pressure because a gamer treats the game like a musical piece, playing each night his own way. Gamer’s are hard to find, even in the rarefied air of the NBA. And Russell Westbrook is one.
Portland right now is 2 stars and 5 good to super role players. Who fit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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."
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.
@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.
@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.
"Can he play ball?" I totally agree this is not the most important question to ask of an NBA player. Take for example JR Smith of the Nuggets,who many of us watched here as a Hornet. (or DIDN't watch because he couldn't get out of Byron Scott's doghouse long enough to LET us watch him for long!!)
JR is an undesputed BALLER. Has been since he was like 4.
excellent posts Crow - well said.
Or ignore. I guess you can go further and diss stats and "statheads". But I think it is better to callout specific stats or specific statements of statheads" than to diss them generally.
"Can he play ball?" Is a statement I will commnet on some- again- because it is not enough to "play ball". On a 5 man team roles are shared but also divided and if you are just being a baller just doing what you are most capable of / interested in you might be missing stuff you are expected / needed to provide. The division of roles though is on the coach and GM. If they give you permission to just be a baller and do what you do best then they better figured out how it fits together. Use stats heavy or not they have to figure it out and get the best team results.
Brooks' team is 6th worst on record and if you substitute Brooks' win % for the PJ era they'd put up 4 more wins and still be 6th worst. And a new study shows Presti's team in 4th worst on margin win per $salary spent this season. Of course it is all about the future. But a fast unfolding future where either Brooks and Presti show dramatically better results or maybe they don't.
Stats are just a tool (set) but a pretty big and versatile one.
Stats can help get at effectiveness and effectiveness at team level is in part about non-boxscore stuff and fit. Adjusted, player pairs, on /off, clutch, etc. etc. help get at that.
Before there were databases to check on these things with some accuracy but still some unknowns (unless you spend the time to dig deeper to reduce the unknowns) coaches and GMs did a lot of thinking and concluding about these aspects based on memory. Some folks are sharp and store a lot of information and pretty well. But even smart folks can misremember or mis-total the sum of what they see. Stats make "knowing" easier and more sure. But it is still in how you use them. I present a lot of stats and analysis from it but I do not feel it is the one perspective or the whole truth. I often will present stats fairly plainly but it is not meant to imply this is simple indisputable fact, rather I am just laying it out there for folks to take or blend or reshape or contradict as they feel appropriate.
How about the Thunder just trade Westbrook over summer huh? Since the amateur Miss Cleo's and their psychic ability tell us that Westbrook isn't about to amount to anything, might as well trade him now. The change of scenery will probably do Westbrook some good and hopefully he can pull a Devin Harris or maybe better.
@Clark Matthews
Wade has the highest usage of any player in the NBA. He plays off the ball only when he's on the bench or resting up in-game. That's like saying Lebron plays off the ball because he's a SF.
We just had a conversation about this the other day on this blog. I asked if court vision was a skill that you could learn, or if you were born with it. We had mixed views on that answer.
To me, RW was not born with court vision. Shaun Livingston, however, was born with court vision. Livingston also has the natural ball handling skills that RW does not have. The latter can be learned, the former... I'm still not convinced.
I do however believe that there is a pseudo-court vision that one can learn, the version that knows where all your teammates are because you've played with them, in that offense, for 10,000 hours, and you just... know. The pattern recognition section of your brain is fully engaged, and your muscle memory can just feel where your teammates are at. All due to hard work and repetition. Natural court vision is like Jason Kidd, or Steve Nash. They both have about 4 pairs of eyes in front and in back of their head, as well as a bird's eye pair at midcourt.
RW definitely has intangibles. I'm not convinced they're the PG intangibles, but I know he has them. He's got that inner drive, and an amazing knack for the ball, especially on offensive rebounds. He has quick hands, and can poke a hole in a passing lane with the best of them. That takes anticipation as well as athleticism, and RW has both of those. RW has a personality that encourages chemistry with his teammates. You don't see them getting down on him for his mistakes. That means they're on his side, wanting him to succeed. His teammates are his fans. AI went years playing ball with the opposite reaction from his teammates. AI hates practice, and we all know it. RW stays at practice until he takes his 65 free throw shooting percentage from college, and turns it into an 80+ free throw shooting percentage in the pros.
RW has upside. TONS of it. Maybe it's at PG. I'm more inclined to think it's at combo guard. But RW also has intangibles. Upside + intangibles = future all star, at any position.
J.G. (formerly Joey) :Nicely written, but there is such a thing as a “rookie mistake.” It’s called something only a rookie would try to do and fail to do because they do not have the experience or have not yet adapted to the speed, force and overall competitive level of the NBA. Hence the ‘rookie’ part of the phrase.
And as much as I’d love to paint it as a beautiful experiment of court creativity while pushing the envelope of visual and spatial awareness… when you’re team is down two with forty seconds left and you recklessly drive to the whole with four guys blocking the basket and then you throw the ball out of bounds while trying to force up a shot…guess what, you made a rookie mistake and better learn from it.
I’m all for not limiting Westbrook’s creativity and athletic ability, but there’s a difference between being creative versus trying to do something that used to work in college but won’t work in the the pro’s. It’s called getting sat on the bench by your coach after a costly turnover in your rookie season. It’s a lesson Russell’s already learned that will make him a better baller: experience.
Other than that, heck yeah he’s a gamer! Well said.
agree with most everything you've written here . . .
@Royce
I would agree with Joe in regards to the current state of the NBA but I feel like NBA franchises built houses (teams) for decades without the use of the advanced statistical analysis that the current generation of NBA fans have popularized. This suggests to me that it is possible to evaluate talent and build a championship team simply by observational methods, without the use of advanced statistical analysis. I mean, are we saying that those older generations of NBA teams were just lucky in building good teams because they didn't base many of their decisions on statistical analysis?
I think it's far to early to determine where Russell fits (see: http://www.dailythunder.com/?p=1493). He's learning the point guard position and this is his rookie year. Maybe he's a two guard. Maybe's he's an All-Star point guard waiting to happen. It will all work itself out.
@Clark- Point taken about the Wade comparison, but Westbrook doesn't have a dead-eye outside shot at the moment either! Sure he could work on his 3-pointer OR he could develop his "floor general" mentality. He absolutely needs to learn to think first about what else is available/developing on the floor and THEN about taking his slower/older/weaker opponent to the rack! This will do him well to learn anyway, because there will always be someone faster/younger/stronger waiting to take HIM to the rack someday!
@Royce I doubt we'll ever get 29 ppg out of him as long as he shares the floor with Kevin Durant, but Wade gets those numbers, wait for it, off the ball.
Joe :
I like stats more than most, but stats are just another tool. If you are building a house, you want hammers, saws, levels, nail guns, sqaures etc. Anything from that list that is missing and it becomes more of a chore to build, and in some respects (a level), you may have a crappy finished product.
So if we combine stats, with visual evaluation (watch a lot of basketball), read about strategy, listen to the announcers who know about the game, read the blogs (where some of the stuff is really educating) you have all the tools to really evaluate your team, the players and the NBA at large, which for me makes a better product. More fun to talk about and to watch.
If you take out one of those tools, and to me, stats are like the level, you aren’t getting the whole picture. But they are just one tool, not the end all be all.
(Stands and claps) Perfectly put Joe.
I like stats more than most, but stats are just another tool. If you are building a house, you want hammers, saws, levels, nail guns, sqaures etc. Anything from that list that is missing and it becomes more of a chore to build, and in some respects (a level), you may have a crappy finished product.
So if we combine stats, with visual evaluation (watch a lot of basketball), read about strategy, listen to the announcers who know about the game, read the blogs (where some of the stuff is really educating) you have all the tools to really evaluate your team, the players and the NBA at large, which for me makes a better product. More fun to talk about and to watch.
If you take out one of those tools, and to me, stats are like the level, you aren't getting the whole picture. But they are just one tool, not the end all be all.
There's a place for statistics, and there's a place for rah rah type of articles where the author just finds a new and different way to say "I really think this player rocks". Some like one or the other or neither or both. It's all good. One is not better than the other.
@Clark Matthews
If Russ wants to be Dwayne Wade, I'm all for it. I'll take 29 ppg and seven assists.
@Royce and @okiefunk: It isn't that I'm not feeling the Westbrook love. I would LOVE to see him play off the ball. I think the team would be better off with him on the floor but participating in, not running, the offense.
It's like the guy Royce cited in the previous post said, Westbrook should model himself after Dwyane Wade, another guy who, when drafted, was expected to be a point guard because he just happened to be shorter than Michael Jordan. Now Wade is a shooting guard and is much more effective than if he was asked to be more unselfish.
Today's stats aren't "enough" and if you prefer not to push them hard that is your choice but I disagree that pushing stats hard necessarily means a weakness in the ability to see the rest of the picture or really the full picture as well as others.
But Westbrook is the absolute last guy you should use to take shots at adjusted +/- or advanced stats in general. He is by far the best player on the team on that. It is adjusted +/- that gives a more solid basis for the praise of Westbrook (beyond his boxscore stats) and it agrees with the above subjective commentary rather than disagreeing.
@okiefunk
I saw that today... Clark and I will have to have a talk.
@Royce
Amen, though, you realize that the +/- crowd will now hunt us all down, right? :)
@Royce-- You need to invite Clart at TLO over to participate. He is not feeling the Westbrook love!
http://www.thelostogle.com/2009/04/02/peace-love-and-thunderstanding-ushering-in-the-livingston-era/
Alex :
Loved it…
When I read this post, I actually felt like I was reading the words of a Thunder basketball fan. Sometimes when I read the posts and comments from our more stat-oriented fans, I feel like their fandom is driven more by stats than the actual game of basketball. It’s nice to know there are people still out there who can judge talent without having to dissect a box score…props John.
I agree with you. I realize basketball stats are beginning to take over the game, but when people start trying to tell me Kevin Durant isn't really that good because his "Wins Produced" or whatever is low, then I just stop listening. Stats have their place and can help us understand the whole story, but sometimes it can just be ridiculous.
Basketball as jazz improvisation-- LOVE IT!!
Nicely written, but there is such a thing as a "rookie mistake." It's called something only a rookie would try to do and fail to do because they do not have the experience or have not yet adapted to the speed, force and overall competitive level of the NBA. Hence the 'rookie' part of the phrase.
And as much as I'd love to paint it as a beautiful experiment of court creativity while pushing the envelope of visual and spatial awareness... when you're team is down two with forty seconds left and you recklessly drive to the whole with four guys blocking the basket and then you throw the ball out of bounds while trying to force up a shot...guess what, you made a rookie mistake and better learn from it.
I'm all for not limiting Westbrook's creativity and athletic ability, but there's a difference between being creative versus trying to do something that used to work in college but won't work in the the pro's. It's called getting sat on the bench by your coach after a costly turnover in your rookie season. It's a lesson Russell's already learned that will make him a better baller: experience.
Other than that, heck yeah he's a gamer! Well said.
Loved it...
When I read this post, I actually felt like I was reading the words of a Thunder basketball fan. Sometimes when I read the posts and comments from our more stat-oriented fans, I feel like their fandom is driven more by stats than the actual game of basketball. It's nice to know there are people still out there who can judge talent without having to dissect a box score...props John.
I wonder if, in the end, that's all we've been arguing this whole time with Westbrook. I don't think anyone here would say the kid can't play, or doesn't help us overall, but we can always nitpick how much of a fit he is within our idea of what the Thunder "team" really is about. Same with Durant, Green, Thabo, and Krstic. I'm not worried anymore about whether our players can play (not something that could have been said about the team last year), especially with Presti making the picks, but I'm always worried about how well we fit together and stack up against the opposition.
@Keith
Pretty much, yeah.
So we're on our way to the first part of winning a championship, landing 5 guys who can "ball." Now we just need our "ballers" to become a team.