2014 Playoffs: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Oklahoma City

Westbrook being Westbrook on that final three point attempt.

OKC got 5 pts from their bench and all of them scored by Fisher in 33 minutes LOL.

One thing I couldn't understand was how the ball never found Durant during OT and last couple minutes of 4th quarter. You have the league MVP, at least allow him to touch the ball once in every possession. But instead Westbrook was the only player that touched the ball in most possessions. This resulted KD to be out of sync on ball because he was not involved in offense for so long. Fuck Westbrook.

Actually, one play was designed for Durant (The triple screen) but Westbrook knew it would be "risky" to pass it to the "MVP" so he just drove it in the lane.

But Im actually depressed that OKC didn't win this one.



bull...fucking...shit..

https://vine.co/v/MpZWPrPDzbu

This resulted KD to be out of sync on ball because he was not involved in offense for so long. Fuck Westbrook.

Actually, one play was designed for Durant (The triple screen) but Westbrook knew it would be "risky" to pass it to the "MVP" so he just drove it in the lane.

My friend and I were raging how KD wasn't getting his shares of touch down the stretch for so long. Sure he's made a couple mistake here and there but it seemed as if Westbrook never wanted KD to run any play. When KD got the ball finally, it wasn't a surprise he and his team were out of sync.

You have LeBron equal, the most prolific player on offense in the league actually. How do you stay away from him for so long and so often during clutch. That was just absurd. Get him the fucking ball and clear out the way, fuckers.

https://vine.co/v/MpZWPrPDzbu

Terrible shot by Westbrook at the end of overtime, but they'd already gotten themselves into a tough spot, down four with so little time and no timeouts remaining. A fine season on the whole for Durant and the Thunder, but still work to be done.

Kevin Durant needs a Michael Jordan to his Scottie Pippen.
Right now Kevin Durant is the Carmelo Anthony to Russell Westbrook's Allen Iverson, the Charlie Villanueva to Ben Gordon, the Paul Pierce to Antoine Walker.

Yeah, he needed Russell to get injured again or something.

Last season, they lost Westbrook and got eaten alive by the Grizzlies 4-1. So they're probably better with Westbrook.

But Westbrook clearly is overrated. When he's on, there's no one that can stop him. He has his 40 points night every now and then. But you will see a lot of 7 for 24 shooting in between. Those are deal killers. And you want your teammates possibly involved in every possession especially KD who is the best offensive machine in the league. But it's too often he's the only one that gets to touch the ball on entire possession. I don't care how he can own CP3 time to time, CP3 is a superior point guard and deserves his nick name point-god. Westbrook needs to smarten up his game.

Who's overrating him? He's routinely criticised for stuff like that, so I think most people have him pegged: very talented, capable of doing some great things, but prone to moments of selfishness and bad decision making.

Who's overrating him?

http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/t ... -overrated

That piece is just nitpicking stats and also stuck on the notion of confining a player to his playing position and what is expected of him in that specific position. This is why people are apprehensive about stats and why we can't have nice things.

Video actually is nicer if you have time to sit and listen. I don't necessarily think Westbrook is overrated by many people but he is overrated nonetheless by couple factors such as the ones explained from the site. That's the point that we all seem to be able to agree at least.

Yes, that's an accurate assessment of his abilities. But my question is, who exactly is actually rating him as being better than he really is (in other words, overrating him)? Again, most people seem to have him pegged and fairly evaluated, noting his obvious flaws while acknowledging his strengths and talents. I don't think a majority of fans or sportswriters claim that he's without those faults, or that his abilities are greater than they actually are.

I don't disagree with the actual criticisms of Westbrook, in fact I'd say they're absolutely on the money. I just think "overrated" is the wrong word to use, mainly because its meaning has been bastardised. It's basically come to mean "athlete/actor/director/artist that has a lot of flaws" or "movie that everyone else seems to like, but I think sucked". It's a term that's often used very subjectively and quite often ignores the perception/reaction of the majority, which may very well not be an overestimation of the person or thing in question. As such, nothing has actually been overrated.

I admit that it may be a pedantic point, probably because it's become a pet peeve for me, but I think "overrated" is too often substituted for more accurate terms like "flawed", "problematic", and "imperfect". The drawbacks in Westbrook's game are commonly known and often mentioned in criticism of him. In most people's evaluation of him as a player, those flaws are most definitely mentioned when comparing him to other players and evaluating his rank in the league, so I don't know that he's really overrated by anyone except perhaps a vocal minority of fanboys.

The same goes for players like Blake Griffin, Carmelo Anthony, and going back some years ago now, Antoine Walker. Such players are commonly described as "overrated", but if most people think they're overrated, then by definition, they're actually not. After all, few people are actually assessing them to be better than they are; there's only a belief that everyone else is overestimating their abilities, when in fact there actually seems to be a fair amount of agreement on the matter. To that end, I don't think those players (nor Westbrook) are truly overrated, because their flaws are too well known and too often criticised for the perception of the majority to be so off-base.

Now, if you're talking about someone making the suggestion that Westbrook is the best point guard in the league, or a player that's capable of being an effective sidekick on a championship team or even a franchise player that can lead a team to a title, then yeah, given his faults that's overestimating his abilities somewhat and thus overrating him. Again, I don't know that that's a common belief though, outside the aforementioned vocal minority of fanboys. If the suggestion is just that he's a really good to great player with a lot of talent (albeit with some major flaws in his game), then that's not overrating him. The latter seems to be the common point of view, so again, I don't see him as being overrated. Not by the majority, at any rate.

But as for his flaws, they absolutely have to be a concern for the Thunder moving forward. It's understandable as he wasn't a point guard until he got to the NBA, so he doesn't have the right mentality (and he's still fairly young to boot), but that still leaves the question of what they can do about it as they hope to continue to contend. I expect it has to be some combination of the following:

1. Hope that he continues to improve and mature as a player. Better guidance from coaches and veteran players wouldn't go astray, of course.
2. Bring in a player who is more suited to being a floor general, so that Westbrook can be utilised in a role in which he's more effective and suited to.
3. If need be, bring in a new coach who will better utilise Westbrook (and everyone else for that matter), while helping him to grow as a player.

I understand where you are coming from. But in my(or boxScrGeek's) case, It wasn't 'who' but instead it was 'what' were making a said player overrated. Such as Kobe himself probably isn't overrated, but I still think he is, mostly because he is widely discussed among likes of MJ and LBJ. Same, Westbrook's been in the discussion with CP3. Discussion itself makes Westbrook overrated in my opinion.

Fair enough. Still, certain players do establish themselves as the yardstick, and comparisons are inevitable if we're measuring other players by their standards. It's the conclusions that are drawn in those comparisons and evaluations where players are potentially overrated and underrated. And again, pedantic point I know, but "overrated" does get used in a lot of places where other adjectives would be more accurate and descriptive, possibly because it seems to add some objectivity to analysis and rankings that are prone to subjectivity (particularly when it comes to films, television shows, literature and the like).

It's an interesting question to ponder though, what exactly constitutes overrated and underrated...especially as it changes the more people gravitate towards either point of view. The issue of players being overpaid is interesting, too; on the surface, it would also imply they're being overrated, by a team's front office if nobody else. However, it may just be that a team is willing to pay top dollar for a player with a certain skillset, knowing full well they have flaws in their game. Perhaps, then, the team is overrating a particular facet of the game rather than the individual player, but it may just be that they value what a player can do and/or want to reward his loyalty and past contributions...or keep him from going to a rival team where they'll suffer at the hands of his skills rather than benefit from them.

Yes, that's an accurate assessment of his abilities. But my question is, who exactly is actually rating him as being better than he really is (in other words, overrating him)? Again, most people seem to have him pegged and fairly evaluated, noting his obvious flaws while acknowledging his strengths and talents. I don't think a majority of fans or sportswriters claim that he's without those faults, or that his abilities are greater than they actually are.

I don't disagree with the actual criticisms of Westbrook, in fact I'd say they're absolutely on the money. I just think "overrated" is the wrong word to use, mainly because its meaning has been bastardised. It's basically come to mean "athlete/actor/director/artist that has a lot of flaws" or "movie that everyone else seems to like, but I think sucked". It's a term that's often used very subjectively and quite often ignores the perception/reaction of the majority, which may very well not be an overestimation of the person or thing in question. As such, nothing has actually been overrated.

I admit that it may be a pedantic point, probably because it's become a pet peeve for me, but I think "overrated" is too often substituted for more accurate terms like "flawed", "problematic", and "imperfect". The drawbacks in Westbrook's game are commonly known and often mentioned in criticism of him. In most people's evaluation of him as a player, those flaws are most definitely mentioned when comparing him to other players and evaluating his rank in the league, so I don't know that he's really overrated by anyone except perhaps a vocal minority of fanboys.

The same goes for players like Blake Griffin, Carmelo Anthony, and going back some years ago now, Antoine Walker. Such players are commonly described as "overrated", but if most people think they're overrated, then by definition, they're actually not. After all, few people are actually assessing them to be better than they are; there's only a belief that everyone else is overestimating their abilities, when in fact there actually seems to be a fair amount of agreement on the matter. To that end, I don't think those players (nor Westbrook) are truly overrated, because their flaws are too well known and too often criticised for the perception of the majority to be so off-base.

Now, if you're talking about someone making the suggestion that Westbrook is the best point guard in the league, or a player that's capable of being an effective sidekick on a championship team or even a franchise player that can lead a team to a title, then yeah, given his faults that's overestimating his abilities somewhat and thus overrating him. Again, I don't know that that's a common belief though, outside the aforementioned vocal minority of fanboys. If the suggestion is just that he's a really good to great player with a lot of talent (albeit with some major flaws in his game), then that's not overrating him. The latter seems to be the common point of view, so again, I don't see him as being overrated. Not by the majority, at any rate.

But as for his flaws, they absolutely have to be a concern for the Thunder moving forward. It's understandable as he wasn't a point guard until he got to the NBA, so he doesn't have the right mentality (and he's still fairly young to boot), but that still leaves the question of what they can do about it as they hope to continue to contend. I expect it has to be some combination of the following:

1. Hope that he continues to improve and mature as a player. Better guidance from coaches and veteran players wouldn't go astray, of course.
2. Bring in a player who is more suited to being a floor general, so that Westbrook can be utilised in a role in which he's more effective and suited to.
3. If need be, bring in a new coach who will better utilise Westbrook (and everyone else for that matter), while helping him to grow as a player.

What a long overrated post.

my question is, who exactly is actually rating him as being better than he really is (in other words, overrating him)?

Underpants gnomes.

Their system puts only a few point guards "over" him:

Paul, the obvious one. Curry, the other obvious next best option other than Westbrook.

Then Dragic, Lowry, Prigioni, Rubio, Hill, Lawson and Andre Miller.

A year ago it was Calderon, Beverley, Prigioni, Conley, Rondo, Lowry, Curry, Hill, Tony Parker, Bledsoe, Deron Williams, Nash.

Of course this is the same system that thinks you could win 60+ games with Chandler, Reggie Evans, Aminu, Sefelosha and Calderon as your five main players.

Actually I wanted to know what stat gurus in our forum thought about these non b-r metrics such as WP, PIE, or whatever popular ones out there.

Though it's hard not to argue that WP has its major(known) flaws, I think its idea is quite neat: positional adjusted (in which they claim to capture team essence efficiently). It's just not is an end-it-all conclusion. Also interestingly, there's sizable change in ratings when you play around with player's position designation, such as LBJ to PF, or Love to SF. It's experimental and there's usefulness I believe. Whereas all other stats such as WS, PER, PIE they are all EFF based and designed to agree to each other and align with perception. There's claims this approach is unscientific and outdated (which I disagree).

WP assumes two things:
1. That there is a "proper" way to play each position, and that positions are definitive.
2. That possession distribution has no effect on efficiency, in other words, that possessions aren't limited.

As I pointed out to shadow this results in a lot of their projection issues. For example the above "team" being a 60+ win team.

Take their Bobcats projection: http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/t ... to-nowhere

I did a simple one using my system that does assign value to possession distribution, 2012-13 stats for everyone but Jefferson (I don't have complete 2012-13 numbers...I used other years and it doesn't change the projection much more than one game):

Code:

Player     MPG     PPG     RPG     APG     W
jefferson,al     33.8     20.6     10.5     1.9     7.0
walker,kemba     33.8     16.8     3.3     5.5     6.1
henderson,gerald     33.8     16.3     4.0     2.7     5.6
sessions,ramon     29.0     15.0     3.0     4.0     5.1
kidd-gilchrist,m     33.8     11.5     7.6     1.8     4.7
mcroberts,josh     33.8     10.0     7.9     2.7     4.2
adrien,jeff     14.5     4.1     4.0     0.6     2.0
taylor,jeff     14.5     4.4     1.4     0.6     1.9
biyombo,bismack     14.5     2.5     3.9     0.2     1.6

Projection: 41-41
Range: 38-48 wins

Compare to their actual stats: http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/teams/cha? ... s_produced

And you can see that they underestimated the boost in efficiency* to pretty much everyone due to Jefferson's possession usage. Their system considers this unimportant. PER goes too far in one direction (as long as you make more than 32% of your shots your PER will increase with every shot), but Oliver's theory (which leads to Ortg/Drtg, WS and basically my system) lands pretty well in my opinion. Even if does often "align with perception" whatever is supposed to be negative about that.

WP ultimately fails to explain the logic of the 2001 Sixers winning 56 games. A theory that considers possession distribution finds nothing odd about it. (If you take the 2000 WP numbers and set the 2001 minutes, then give Kevin Ollie all of Iverson's minutes and vice versa WP thinks the team would have gone 63-19 instead of 51-31**.)

*WP48
**WP Projection with actual minutes

stuck on the notion of confining a player to his playing position and what is expected of him in that specific position.

WP assumes...

That there is a "proper" way to play each position, and that positions are definitive.

...this results in a lot of their projection issues.

Dammit. I hate you for giving a detailed yet simpler explanation of what I said and making it clearer for me in the process. Dick.


PIE interests me but I haven't yet gotten around to scrutinizing it's flaws or best uses like how PER is best used (for me anyway) for efficiency of offensive players but not so much for defensive players so I'm still not keen on looking at PIE values.

WP assumes two things:
1. That there is a "proper" way to play each position, and that positions are definitive.
2. That possession distribution has no effect on efficiency, in other words, that possessions aren't limited.

As I pointed out to shadow this results in a lot of their projection issues. For example the above "team" being a 60+ win team.

Take their Bobcats projection: http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/t ... to-nowhere

I did a simple one using my system that does assign value to possession distribution, 2012-13 stats for everyone but Jefferson (I don't have complete 2012-13 numbers...I used other years and it doesn't change the projection much more than one game):

Code:

Player     MPG     PPG     RPG     APG     W
jefferson,al     33.8     20.6     10.5     1.9     7.0
walker,kemba     33.8     16.8     3.3     5.5     6.1
henderson,gerald     33.8     16.3     4.0     2.7     5.6
sessions,ramon     29.0     15.0     3.0     4.0     5.1
kidd-gilchrist,m     33.8     11.5     7.6     1.8     4.7
mcroberts,josh     33.8     10.0     7.9     2.7     4.2
adrien,jeff     14.5     4.1     4.0     0.6     2.0
taylor,jeff     14.5     4.4     1.4     0.6     1.9
biyombo,bismack     14.5     2.5     3.9     0.2     1.6

Projection: 41-41
Range: 38-48 wins

Compare to their actual stats: http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/teams/cha? ... s_produced

And you can see that they underestimated the boost in efficiency* to pretty much everyone due to Jefferson's possession usage. Their system considers this unimportant. PER goes too far in one direction (as long as you make more than 32% of your shots your PER will increase with every shot), but Oliver's theory (which leads to Ortg/Drtg, WS and basically my system) lands pretty well in my opinion. Even if does often "align with perception" whatever is supposed to be negative about that.

WP ultimately fails to explain the logic of the 2001 Sixers winning 56 games. A theory that considers possession distribution finds nothing odd about it. (If you take the 2000 WP numbers and set the 2001 minutes, then give Kevin Ollie all of Iverson's minutes and vice versa WP thinks the team would have gone 63-19 instead of 51-31**.)

*WP48
**WP Projection with actual minutes

This actually is the best argument I've heard against the WP. I'm not knowledgeable enough in understanding of formula to counter any of this. But I will perhaps copy paste this piece when discussion happens again at one of their blogs.

And couple things...

which leads to Ortg/Drtg, WS and basically my system

What exactly do you mean by your system? How do you exactly do what and what does it suggest?


Also they were off with the Bobcats prediction but no prediction based on stats are perfect anyway. Say you make a prediction based on Bobcat players WS last season, they probably weren't going to make the playoffs even with addition of Al Jefferson. None of the Bobcats players had above average ws48 prior to this this season but 8 players did this season.

Unless you accept the assumption that better possession distribution raises all boats. Kemba Walker, Gerald Henderson, etc. are all having better possessions because Jefferson is there using a bunch of possessions now.

And that's the point of using the Bobcats preview as an example, of course no predictions are entirely perfectly accurate, but WP doesn't even consider the effects of possession distribution. It simply says play the highest WP48 players at each position more. The Jefferson example, like Harden a year before shows the impact of adding a high usage player and if they're efficient (like Harden and Jefferson) so much the better.

Another example? Monta Ellis this year in Dallas. They're negative on both him and Carter when those were two of Dallas' key players this year. Considering the ESPN article about the Mavs offense, I think I'll lean towards a model that is in more agreement.

Just to use the players on the same team, if you give all of Carter's minutes to Jae Crowder and swap Ellis and Ellingtons, WP thinks the Mavs would be 53-29 instead of 49-33. My system thinks they'd would drop to 35-47 even with Dirk and Calderon boosting their individual ppg.*

Even more fun. Eliminating Dirk from this altered team and giving all his minutes to Dalembert, Wright and Blair.

Wins Produced:

Code:

Projection: 57-25
NAME   MPG   WINS
Jae Crowder   39.4   6.99
Wayne Ellington   36.9   5.98
Jose Calderon   30.1   7.51
DeJuan Blair   29.8   7.43
Shawn Marion   29.4   8.28
Brandan Wright   25.3   12.46
Samuel Dalembert   24.6   8.06
Devin Harris   10.0   1.30
Shane Larkin   6.0   -0.51
Monta Ellis   4.8   0.56
Gal Mekel   3.6   -0.96
Bernard James   1.8   0.12
Ricky Ledo   0.4   -0.07

Benjishit:

Code:

Projection: 25-57
Player   MPG   W
crowder,jae   39.3   3.77
ellington,wayne   36.9   3.55
calderon,jose   30.1   3.37
blair,dejuan   29.8   3.76
marion,shawn   29.4   2.95
wright,brandan   25.2   3.48
dalembert,samuel   24.6   2.72
harris,devin   10.0   0.82
larkin,shane   6.0   0.32
ellis,monta   4.8   0.35
mekel,gal   3.6   0.09
james,bernard   1.8   0.18
ledo,ricky   0.4   0.01

For funsies, their wins per 48 minutes and mine, sorted by mine:

Code:

Brandan Wright   .492   .138
DeJuan Blair   .249   .126
Jose Calderon   .249   .112
Samuel Dalembert   .328   .110
Bernard James   .067   .103
Shawn Marion   .282   .100
Wayne Ellington   .162   .096
Jae Crowder   .178   .096
Devin Harris   .130   .082
Monta Ellis   .118   .072
Shane Larkin   -.085   .054
Gal Mekel   -.270   .024
Ricky Ledo   -.185   .017