I think you're showing your bias against the Clippers and Paul show through here.
I will agree that the seemingly large gap between Paul and Curry is probably BS at this point. I don't think you can go wrong with either at this point as they both bring a lot to the table and do so in different ways. Curry is clearly the better scorer and has improved immensely as a passer and defender. Paul is one of the better defensive PGs in the league and looks to set up his teammates more than score ... but he has shown an ability to score at a high level if/when needed.
I think Westbrook is a step behind both right now in terms of being a complete PG ... no question that he's having a great year but as was mentioned elsewhere he's more of a volume scorer and I don't get the impression that his assists totals are tied to getting others involved in the game as much as they are tied to not having an option to score if that makes sense. I don't think Westbrook would be the player that passes it to others at the expense of his point totals.
Conley is definitely underrated by the public but probably properly rated here. Wall seems a bit overrated. I don't know enough about Lillard's defense to know if that ranking is deserved. Kyrie is probably low on this list considering the strides he's made in the last couple of months - he's still very young and should be a top 3-5 PG in the league in the next 2-3 years.
Bledsoe and Dragic seem a little low to me. Rondo on the surface seems low but he's not in a situation at the moment that plays to his strengths. He's definitely a player that needs to be in the right fit to maximize his talents.
Any argument against Westbrook is ridiculous at this poont, and I've been a hater since dude entered the league. He's the best PG in the game, hands down, nuff said, case closed, end of discussion.
If you're lining up at the gym and picking teams the only way Westbrook doesn't go before Paul and Curry is if Westbrook is a captain. Which he probably would be.
So your criteria is who you'd pick first in a pickup game at the gym?
Westbrook is having a great year. Without what he has done, no chance OKC makes the playoffs. He's absolutely carried him and is putting up numbers that few have even scratched the surface of much less matched for such an extended stretch of time.
I also agree that putting Westbrook in a position where he's stereotyped as this or that is probably not the right way to look at it. But for the purposes of this discussion, we're talking about PGs. And if I'm building a team, I would rather have Paul or Curry on it provided I was able to build it in a manner that allowed me to get strong wing players to go with them.
I've never been a guy that looks at stats and says that because this guy is putting up numbers he's better than this guy. Numbers are generally meaningless to me in comparing players. I'm not convinced that you can build a team around Westbrook and get a championship caliber team with him looking to put up 40-50% of his team's shots. I personally don't think that that works out well. I think we'll see Curry win a title this year. I definitely think you could win a title with Chris Paul as your PG (whether we see that is way up in the air and unfortunately too much of his career was wasted playing on teams that didn't have great talent).
I think you're showing your bias against the Clippers and Paul show through here.
I will agree that the seemingly large gap between Paul and Curry is probably BS at this point. I don't think you can go wrong with either at this point as they both bring a lot to the table and do so in different ways. Curry is clearly the better scorer and has improved immensely as a passer and defender. Paul is one of the better defensive PGs in the league and looks to set up his teammates more than score ... but he has shown an ability to score at a high level if/when needed.
I think Westbrook is a step behind both right now in terms of being a complete PG ... no question that he's having a great year but as was mentioned elsewhere he's more of a volume scorer and I don't get the impression that his assists totals are tied to getting others involved in the game as much as they are tied to not having an option to score if that makes sense. I don't think Westbrook would be the player that passes it to others at the expense of his point totals.
Conley is definitely underrated by the public but probably properly rated here. Wall seems a bit overrated. I don't know enough about Lillard's defense to know if that ranking is deserved. Kyrie is probably low on this list considering the strides he's made in the last couple of months - he's still very young and should be a top 3-5 PG in the league in the next 2-3 years.
Bledsoe and Dragic seem a little low to me. Rondo on the surface seems low but he's not in a situation at the moment that plays to his strengths. He's definitely a player that needs to be in the right fit to maximize his talents.
It's not a bias. I've been watching the Clippers closely. They would be better with Curry or Westbrook. It's that simple.
I think you're showing your bias against the Clippers and Paul show through here.
I will agree that the seemingly large gap between Paul and Curry is probably BS at this point. I don't think you can go wrong with either at this point as they both bring a lot to the table and do so in different ways. Curry is clearly the better scorer and has improved immensely as a passer and defender. Paul is one of the better defensive PGs in the league and looks to set up his teammates more than score ... but he has shown an ability to score at a high level if/when needed.
I think Westbrook is a step behind both right now in terms of being a complete PG ... no question that he's having a great year but as was mentioned elsewhere he's more of a volume scorer and I don't get the impression that his assists totals are tied to getting others involved in the game as much as they are tied to not having an option to score if that makes sense. I don't think Westbrook would be the player that passes it to others at the expense of his point totals.
Conley is definitely underrated by the public but probably properly rated here. Wall seems a bit overrated. I don't know enough about Lillard's defense to know if that ranking is deserved. Kyrie is probably low on this list considering the strides he's made in the last couple of months - he's still very young and should be a top 3-5 PG in the league in the next 2-3 years.
Bledsoe and Dragic seem a little low to me. Rondo on the surface seems low but he's not in a situation at the moment that plays to his strengths. He's definitely a player that needs to be in the right fit to maximize his talents.
It's not a bias. I've been watching the Clippers closely. They would be better with Curry or Westbrook. It's that simple.
Are you saying that because you think they are both better than Paul or because the Clippers need more scoring from the position and they are better fits on that team?
Chris Paul was getting major love when he played for NO and teamed up with David West to lose to the Lakers. Paul has always got a boost for off court shit like Katrina and Sterling. The media loves him because he was outspoken and said things they agree with.
He's not a winner. The Clippers have locker room issues big time. He has to be in the middle of that.
He's not a winner. The Clippers have locker room issues big time. He has to be in the middle of that.
Interested in hearing more of this ...
From what I can see, I think Blake Griffin can be a little soft. Redick would probably be better served as a rotational guy playing in the 2nd unit with Jamal Crawford. They need a backup PG because Austin Rivers should still be at Duke. Barnes is a huge who knows guy to me ... but he probably shouldn't be starting on a team with championship aspirations.
I think you're showing your bias against the Clippers and Paul show through here.
I will agree that the seemingly large gap between Paul and Curry is probably BS at this point. I don't think you can go wrong with either at this point as they both bring a lot to the table and do so in different ways. Curry is clearly the better scorer and has improved immensely as a passer and defender. Paul is one of the better defensive PGs in the league and looks to set up his teammates more than score ... but he has shown an ability to score at a high level if/when needed.
I think Westbrook is a step behind both right now in terms of being a complete PG ... no question that he's having a great year but as was mentioned elsewhere he's more of a volume scorer and I don't get the impression that his assists totals are tied to getting others involved in the game as much as they are tied to not having an option to score if that makes sense. I don't think Westbrook would be the player that passes it to others at the expense of his point totals.
Conley is definitely underrated by the public but probably properly rated here. Wall seems a bit overrated. I don't know enough about Lillard's defense to know if that ranking is deserved. Kyrie is probably low on this list considering the strides he's made in the last couple of months - he's still very young and should be a top 3-5 PG in the league in the next 2-3 years.
Bledsoe and Dragic seem a little low to me. Rondo on the surface seems low but he's not in a situation at the moment that plays to his strengths. He's definitely a player that needs to be in the right fit to maximize his talents.
It's not a bias. I've been watching the Clippers closely. They would be better with Curry or Westbrook. It's that simple.
Are you saying that because you think they are both better than Paul or because the Clippers need more scoring from the position and they are better fits on that team?
Both are better players. People are still stuck on the pure PG garbage. Who are these pure PG's winning titles?
And Race is right about the locker room issues. Paul yells as glares at his teammates and refs the entire game.
Chris Paul was getting major love when he played for NO and teamed up with David West to lose to the Lakers. Paul has always got a boost for off court shit like Katrina and Sterling. The media loves him because he was outspoken and said things they agree with.
He's not a winner. The Clippers have locker room issues big time. He has to be in the middle of that.
New Orleans lost to the Spurs in 7 in the Western Semi's ... they never played the Lakers.
Paul never had the horses in New Orleans to come anywhere close to a title.
The squad he has right now with the Clippers is a far better version of New Orleans, but some similar parallels (more athletic PF, strong defensive centers, questionable wing players to support).
I don't give a lot of credit to teams losing in the 1st round as being close to the title. In some ways with the way the West is right now, that's a slight caveat ... but that New Orleans team wasn't close. Part of the reason why West bolted and Paul demanded a trade.
Doesn't mean he isn't a great player - but he is anything but a great point guard.
This is like people who argue Russell Wilson isn't a great QB because so much of his value is tied up in his running.
Just because Westbrook doesn't fit the traditional definition of the position doesn't mean he's not a great PG. All this time I thought Westbrook was holding Durant back and it turns out it was the other way around.
Westbrook was bad in game 3 and abysmal in game 5. Games 1 and 2 he was good and game 4 he was spectular.
Scott Brooks is the first person deserving of blame.
James Harden was second. Westbrook went 4-20 in game 5 and he still shot 5% points higher for the series than Harden.
Even third place I'd give to Serge Ibaka. He averaged 7 points and 5 rebounds for that series and he shot worse than Westbrook. For gods sakes Perkins averaged more rebounds than Ibaka. In fact looking at these stats I'm wondering if Ibaka was hurt. I don't remember him being hurt but his numbers look like he was playing with two broken ankles.
You can even make a case that Westbrook was better than Durant. Durant shot a much better percentage but Westbrook grabbed slightly more rebounds (Durant is 7 feet tall) Westbrook averaged 4 more assists per game. Durant had a pathetic 11 assists and 19 turnovers in 5 games. Westbrook only had 11 turnovers which is pretty spectacular against that trapping Heat defense.
Furthermore if Durant had been able to guard Lebron the series would have been completely different. Instead OKC had to resort to sticking Harden on Lebron at times because they were so desperate.
Really the only thing Westbrook did wrong was shoot too many 3s. If you take those shots away he shot 49%. That's fine.
If your argument contains the phrase "if you take away..." you should re think your argument.
It was the quantity of shots by Westbrook that made him MVP for the Heat. I don't do analyticals because I'm old and write by feel but I did look up the stats for this series.
Durant shot 54% and Westbrook shot 43%. Every shot he took away from Durant helped Miami as well as demoralized OKC. Westbrook shot 13% from 3. You can't take that away. Durant was 39% from three. Who would you rather have shooting?
Yes there is plenty of blame to go around and Brooks is the coach and should have been fired at mid court. But for the players it was Westbrook's gunning and missing that set the tone.
If your argument contains the phrase "if you take away..." you should re think your argument.
It was the quantity of shots by Westbrook that made him MVP for the Heat. I don't do analyticals because I'm old and write by feel but I did look up the stats for this series.
Durant shot 54% and Westbrook shot 43%. Every shot he took away from Durant helped Miami as well as demoralized OKC. Westbrook shot 13% from 3. You can't take that away. Durant was 39% from three. Who would you rather have shooting?
Yes there is plenty of blame to go around and Brooks is the coach and should have been fired at mid court. But for the players it was Westbrook's gunning and missing that set the tone.
If your argument contains the phrase "if you take away..." you should re think your argument.
It was the quantity of shots by Westbrook that made him MVP for the Heat. I don't do analyticals because I'm old and write by feel but I did look up the stats for this series.
Durant shot 54% and Westbrook shot 43%. Every shot he took away from Durant helped Miami as well as demoralized OKC. Westbrook shot 13% from 3. You can't take that away. Durant was 39% from three. Who would you rather have shooting?
Yes there is plenty of blame to go around and Brooks is the coach and should have been fired at mid court. But for the players it was Westbrook's gunning and missing that set the tone.
He is much improved now.
Agree to disagree.
I'd prefer to engage in a lengthy string of name calling sir!
If your argument contains the phrase "if you take away..." you should re think your argument.
It was the quantity of shots by Westbrook that made him MVP for the Heat. I don't do analyticals because I'm old and write by feel but I did look up the stats for this series.
Durant shot 54% and Westbrook shot 43%. Every shot he took away from Durant helped Miami as well as demoralized OKC. Westbrook shot 13% from 3. You can't take that away. Durant was 39% from three. Who would you rather have shooting?
Yes there is plenty of blame to go around and Brooks is the coach and should have been fired at mid court. But for the players it was Westbrook's gunning and missing that set the tone.
He is much improved now.
Agree to disagree.
I'd prefer to engage in a lengthy string of name calling sir!
Comments
Westbrook is having a great year. Without what he has done, no chance OKC makes the playoffs. He's absolutely carried him and is putting up numbers that few have even scratched the surface of much less matched for such an extended stretch of time.
I also agree that putting Westbrook in a position where he's stereotyped as this or that is probably not the right way to look at it. But for the purposes of this discussion, we're talking about PGs. And if I'm building a team, I would rather have Paul or Curry on it provided I was able to build it in a manner that allowed me to get strong wing players to go with them.
I've never been a guy that looks at stats and says that because this guy is putting up numbers he's better than this guy. Numbers are generally meaningless to me in comparing players. I'm not convinced that you can build a team around Westbrook and get a championship caliber team with him looking to put up 40-50% of his team's shots. I personally don't think that that works out well. I think we'll see Curry win a title this year. I definitely think you could win a title with Chris Paul as your PG (whether we see that is way up in the air and unfortunately too much of his career was wasted playing on teams that didn't have great talent).
He's not a winner. The Clippers have locker room issues big time. He has to be in the middle of that.
From what I can see, I think Blake Griffin can be a little soft. Redick would probably be better served as a rotational guy playing in the 2nd unit with Jamal Crawford. They need a backup PG because Austin Rivers should still be at Duke. Barnes is a huge who knows guy to me ... but he probably shouldn't be starting on a team with championship aspirations.
And Race is right about the locker room issues. Paul yells as glares at his teammates and refs the entire game.
Paul never had the horses in New Orleans to come anywhere close to a title.
The squad he has right now with the Clippers is a far better version of New Orleans, but some similar parallels (more athletic PF, strong defensive centers, questionable wing players to support).
disagree
I don't give a lot of credit to teams losing in the 1st round as being close to the title. In some ways with the way the West is right now, that's a slight caveat ... but that New Orleans team wasn't close. Part of the reason why West bolted and Paul demanded a trade.
OKC might make the playoffs.
Bad analogy.
Westbrook was bad in game 3 and abysmal in game 5. Games 1 and 2 he was good and game 4 he was spectular.
Scott Brooks is the first person deserving of blame.
James Harden was second. Westbrook went 4-20 in game 5 and he still shot 5% points higher for the series than Harden.
Even third place I'd give to Serge Ibaka. He averaged 7 points and 5 rebounds for that series and he shot worse than Westbrook. For gods sakes Perkins averaged more rebounds than Ibaka. In fact looking at these stats I'm wondering if Ibaka was hurt. I don't remember him being hurt but his numbers look like he was playing with two broken ankles.
You can even make a case that Westbrook was better than Durant. Durant shot a much better percentage but Westbrook grabbed slightly more rebounds (Durant is 7 feet tall) Westbrook averaged 4 more assists per game. Durant had a pathetic 11 assists and 19 turnovers in 5 games. Westbrook only had 11 turnovers which is pretty spectacular against that trapping Heat defense.
Furthermore if Durant had been able to guard Lebron the series would have been completely different. Instead OKC had to resort to sticking Harden on Lebron at times because they were so desperate.
Really the only thing Westbrook did wrong was shoot too many 3s. If you take those shots away he shot 49%. That's fine.
If your argument contains the phrase "if you take away..." you should re think your argument.
It was the quantity of shots by Westbrook that made him MVP for the Heat. I don't do analyticals because I'm old and write by feel but I did look up the stats for this series.
Durant shot 54% and Westbrook shot 43%. Every shot he took away from Durant helped Miami as well as demoralized OKC. Westbrook shot 13% from 3. You can't take that away. Durant was 39% from three. Who would you rather have shooting?
Yes there is plenty of blame to go around and Brooks is the coach and should have been fired at mid court. But for the players it was Westbrook's gunning and missing that set the tone.
He is much improved now.