This has become an Angels and Pinheads discussion.
Ahh, yes, that makes a ton more sense. Sorry.
Although I would note that it's still a somewhat rote analysis done by Bell, and doesn't really suggest whether or not Westbrook selling out for triple doubles is better or worse for the Thunder. Now, him getting triple doubles is clearly better for the Thunder than him not getting them given that they have committed to this approach. But it's quite possible that they could be better if the gameplan didn't in some ways revolve around creating chances for Westbrook to get a triple double (e.g., him cheating down to go for defensive rebounds, him handling so many possessions looking for assists).
Now, that's not to say that their approach is wrong, either. It's not a great team aside from Westbrook and George, so running everything through Westbrook probably does make some sense. Relatedly, though, it is perhaps worth noting that some guys (Reggie Jackson, Victor Oladipo, Donatas Sabonis) all got notably better immediately after leaving OKC. All in all, I'm somewhat ambivalent . Hard to say one way or the other as we don't have any real counterfactuals to work with.
This has become an Angels and Pinheads discussion.
Fair analysis. I will happily go with it. Let me add this little hypothetical just for fun. Let’s say that Kyrie were to leave the Celtics as a free agent. The C’s would then be in need of a starting PG, right? Well, let’s also say that OKC then offers Westbrook to the Celtics for FREE, but only under the condition that they would have to agree to make him their starting PG. I would hope and expect that Danny Ainge would politely say to OKC, “Umm, thanks, but no thanks. We don’t want him.” That’s honestly how I feel about Russell Westbrook. I wouldn’t take him for free.
Man, if your Mom made you wear that color when you were a baby, and you're still wearing it, it's time to grow up!
It has nothing to do with sample size and everything to do with the method of analysis.
If the critique on a player is that he swings for the fences on every atbat, and thus makes very poor contact overall and has a ton of pop ups and strikeouts and hits for a low batting average and On-base Percentage, and that his approach is hurting his team despite his impressive homerun total. The analysis to counter that can't just be "well, in games where he homers, his teams wins 70% of the time and in games where he doesn't homer, they win 30%, so his approach on hitting homeruns is obviously correct because the more he homers the more his team wins". You actually have to look at how often he homers versus how often he doesn't, how if he wasn't trying to homer in every atbat he might have more hits, and walks that can also help his team score more runs.
In other words, I am not saying that TD are in of themselves worthless. But that the fact when the pursuit of them are successful it helps the team does not by itself prove that the pursuit is worth it.
While you're generally correct, one could counter that by saying that in this case, the subject seems to be quite successful in getting TDs...so the % of times your subject homers is quite high.
The counter to that is that your example demonstrates that it's far more useful to look at a players overall contribution rather than whether they achieved an arbitrary benchmark in one or a compilation of stats.
April 1
I haven't looked at Westbrook's numbers to have an opinion on his contributions, I just objected to the flawed analysis that purports to prove that his pursuit of TD helps his team win. There might be a proof out there that backs up the claim, but the one provided failed to persuade.
A few of the players have posted pictures with Mayweather recently. Not Zion... he posts a picture of himself with a former Disney Channel star that he probably watched in his younger days. Best part is the huge smile.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BuALOJigVKi/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet
Last edited by PensDevil; 02-18-2019 at 09:51 AM. Reason: Fixed Link
I'm sure RJ has improved over his short stint at Duke, but I'm also fairly certain that he was capable of a 10-assist game earlier in the season - even while being accused of being a ballhog. Case in point: he had 9 assists (against one turnover) against Syracuse, to go with 23 points and 16 rebounds - but he shot 8-for-30 from the floor.
RJ is so good (and uses so many possessions) that he can rack up a lot of assists even while missing a lot of opportunities to set others up for easy buckets. To put it another way: RJ is already really good, and he can get so much better. Sometimes we focus on the latter and ignore the former.
Not picking on you CDu, but would love to point out to all that there is a great thread out here for people who want to talk about the NBA:
NBA Regular season thread 2019