Russell Westbrook and Derrick Rose

[James Kay]

Aug 26, 2014 19:38:56 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

Aug 25, 2014 17:21:16 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

I think Westbrook and Rose should switch ratings

Russell Westbrook old rating: 90
Russell Westbrook proposed new rating: 92

Derrick Rose old rating: 92
Derrick Rose proposed new rating: 90

If you look at Westbrook's numbers he makes a strong case to be considered the second best point guard in the league, and is really close to Chris Paul. Rose needs to prove he is his former self before he can make the claim as the 1st or 2nd best PG in the league. Here are some stats:

Westbrook last year: espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3468/russell-westbrook

He averaged 21.8 PPG/6.9 APG/5.7 RPG with a PER of 24.74. Through 19 games in the playoffs he averaged 26.7 PPG/8.1 APG/7.3 RPG/2.2 SPG.

For comparison, here is Chris Paul: espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/2779/chris-paul

4 whole ratings above Russell Westbrook is Chris Paul, who averaged 19.1 PPG/10.7 APG/4.3 RPG with a PER of 25.98. Clearly he is still the best PG in the game, but I think Westbrook is closer to him than our ratings currently show.

I think increasing Westbrook to a 92 and decreasing Rose to a 90 for the time being seems to mirror real life production much more realistically. 

Yes, let's take points away from someone who hasn't been able to play. Why don't we decrease to Paul George now too? Javale McGee has missed a lot of time, so has Kobe. We've been over this, I think. Changing a player while he is hurt isn't fair. Which is why we have the IR now.

Except D. Rose HAS played 10 games and he did not look good. I'm not even advocating really for a rating decrease for Rose. Just saying Westbrook is the better option right now. He's a top 7 player in the league. If not higher. See my post above ^^

[Charles Barkley]

Aug 26, 2014 14:51:02 GMT -5 James Kay said:

damn.. i didnt realize what a block of text that was. lemme know if anyone reads that haha

Will read later. But you made some good points in the first 2 paragraphs, so I'll read it later.

[Charles Barkley]

Aug 26, 2014 19:41:18 GMT -5 James Kay said:

I had some time to kill, so here:

	MP	FG%	3P%	FT%	ORB	RBD	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PTS
Rose	37.4	.445	.332	.858	1.0	4.1	7.7	1.0	0.6	3.4	25.0
Westbrook	34.9	.438	.323	.800	1.4	5.2	7.4	1.8	0.3	3.3	23.2

Look how similar an MVP campaign is to Westbrook's 2012-2013 season.

As I've already said, Westbrook has stronger steals and rebounding.

Rose has stronger FT% - and only marginal advantages in the other statistics, most of which are explained by the minute differential.

Additionally, if you compare their per36 numbers and per100 possession numbers for these respective seasons, Westbrook surpasses Rose in many of these statistics.

Furthermore, as I've already said, Westbrook had both a higher PER and a higher Usage rate than Rose during these respective seasons.
AGAIN, it makes NO sense to have Rose above Westbrook.

It may make no sense to have them higher on the logic that you've taken two different years for players. Who isn't to say Rose comes back and has improved? Their teams are also wildly different stylistically.  I think I'd be interested in seeing the % of offense that Rose is responsible for vs that of Westbrook. As well as how many times each player has gotten to the line. I'd also imagine Rose played better defense that season than Westbrook did because of the system. We are basically comparing a Lambo with a Ferrari here. And from what I'm looking at
in the chart, Rose is better IMO. It's all theoretical. What if Westbrook got those extra minutes. What if he ended up with more TOV's, the same amount of points, and a lesser FG%. 

I mean, on the case of Rose vs Westbrook, Westbrook looks equal at best, in my opinion. But what about Curry? And CP3? There isn't a 2 point OVR rating disparity between Westbrook and Rose. But that is because we can't change Rose until we see what he can or can't do. I fully anticipate Rose coming down when we get to change him at the All-Star break, but I don't think Westbrook should be a 92, which is 3 points better than Curry. 

It really is a weird situation, and it will be sorted out at the All-Star break. There are more pressing matters than splitting these hairs right now though.

[Charles Barkley]

Aug 26, 2014 19:43:01 GMT -5 James Kay said:

Aug 26, 2014 19:38:56 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

Yes, let's take points away from someone who hasn't been able to play. Why don't we decrease to Paul George now too? Javale McGee has missed a lot of time, so has Kobe. We've been over this, I think. Changing a player while he is hurt isn't fair. Which is why we have the IR now.

Except D. Rose HAS played 10 games and he did not look good. I'm not even advocating really for a rating decrease for Rose. Just saying Westbrook is the better option right now. He's a top 7 player in the league. If not higher. See my post above ^^

You're right. But what I am saying is that in the scale of point guards in the league, if we raise Westbrook to Rose, a 92, then Curry is out of whack IMO. Not to mention all the young point guards, i.e. Wall, Irving, Lillard. It's a sticky situation. 

I don't want to raise Westbrook to a 92, because I don't feel he is 3 points better than Curry. Or 8 points better than Wall. And I don't want to change Rose, or we can't because we have agreed that it isn't right to change a player on a long term injury, which is what the IR is for. 

Speaking of IR, since our season in F5 doesn't line up with the regular season, how will the IR work? Will they have to miss time in the sim that they missed specifically in RL? For example, Paul George will be out all year 2014-2015, our season will be next summer, Paul George should have to miss that season even though he isn't techinically out in RL because they aren't playing. 

[James Kay]

Aug 26, 2014 20:00:51 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

It may make no sense to have them higher on the logic that you've taken two different years for players. Who isn't to say Rose comes back and has improved?

1. Why doesn't this make sense? I'm comparing an MVP-awarded season with a season from the same position 2 years later. This was also especially brought up because people were holding Rose's MVP against Westbrook. Westbrook can put up the same stats.

2. I thought your philosophy was strictly on rating players based on what they've shown. That's what I'm doing. Westbrook has shown something, and Rose has not. 

"    I think I'd be interested in seeing the % of offense that Rose is responsible for vs that of Westbrook."

Is that not what usage rate is?

[Charles Barkley]

Aug 27, 2014 0:21:07 GMT -5 James Kay said:

Aug 26, 2014 20:00:51 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

It may make no sense to have them higher on the logic that you've taken two different years for players. Who isn't to say Rose comes back and has improved?

1. Why doesn't this make sense? I'm comparing an MVP-awarded season with a season from the same position 2 years later. This was also especially brought up because people were holding Rose's MVP against Westbrook. Westbrook can put up the same stats.

2. I thought your philosophy was strictly on rating players based on what they've shown. That's what I'm doing. Westbrook has shown something, and Rose has not. 

"    I think I'd be interested in seeing the % of offense that Rose is responsible for vs that of Westbrook."

Is that not what usage rate is?

Usage rate is the percentage of team plays used by that specific player. The statement I made, I was saying that Rose carries more of the load in Chicago than Westbrook does in OKC. 

1. It doesn't make sense because the game has changed in those 2 years. It evolves each year. The league in which Rose put up those numbers wasn't the same league that Westbrook put his numbers up in, for better or for worse. 

2. My philosophy is to strictly rate players on their most recent production. Westbrook was hurt much of this past season and put up 22 and 7. And the season before that is the one you mentioned. In this whole thing, we can't look at Rose. Rose is Rose. His rating won't changed until he comes back, just the same with all of the other injured guys in the league. 

When you take Rose out of the equation, you are left with looking at Paul, Westbrook, and Curry as our top 3 rated PGs. And Curry was 24 and 8.5 last season. Plus Curry is more efficient. What he lacks is the defensive abilities that Westbrook possess. 

Rose can't be used as a reference point because his rating is invalid. And if we raise Westbrook to a 92, I think Curry should get a bump as well then. I don't think Curry is 3 points behind Westbrook. And then I don't think Paul is only 2 points better than Westbrook. It throws things out of place and has a huge ripple effect. Because then you have Wall, Parker, Rondo, Lillard, Kyrie all down there and they would need to be brought in line; some of them I just mentioned do need changes IMO, but I feel all of them would need changes if Westbrook is bumped up all because of this. Westbrook will probably be better than Rose next season, and when that happens, we lower Rose. 

That's my feeling on it anyways. 

[Tom Izzo]

Could your solution then be too lower Paul to a 92 and Rose to a 91 until we see how the season goes? The ratings would be:

Paul 92
Rose 91
Westbrook 90
Curry 89

[Walt Frazier]

Paul JUST got a boost to a 94, and he absolutely deserves to be there.

Rose should stay at a 92 until he plays at LEAST most of a season.

Westbrook could go up to a 91

I've been a "Curry for 90" guy but I'm one of his biggest fans. Have Curry at the 89 and then we're OK still.

CP3 - 94
Rose - 92
Westbrook - 91
Curry 89

[Charles Barkley]

Aug 27, 2014 20:28:33 GMT -5 Walt Frazier said:

Paul JUST got a boost to a 94, and he absolutely deserves to be there.

Rose should stay at a 92 until he plays at LEAST most of a season.

Westbrook could go up to a 91

I've been a "Curry for 90" guy but I'm one of his biggest fans. Have Curry at the 89 and then we're OK still.

CP3 - 94
Rose - 92
Westbrook - 91
Curry 89

I agree with what Walt is saying here. 

We can't legitimately lower Rose yet. I am a big Rose fan but I think we will inevitably lower him, just now the time isn't right. Westbrook being a 90 or a 91 isn't a big issue. The numbers next to these guys' names isn't an issue. What is an issue is the difference between one guy's number vs another guy's number. My opinion doesn't reflect everyone's, but I don't think Westbrook is any more than 1 point better than Curry. 

[Vlade Divac]

I am going to accused of being bias but A. I don't give a shit and B. I don't have time right now to argue with you knuckleheads. While Rose outperformed Westbrook when healthy, there is NO WAY he should be ahead of him. With that said, Chris Paul maybe the most overrated player in the game besides Chris Bosh. Seriously, he's a whiny little cry baby who isn't that athletic and makes costly mistakes for his team. Who played better head to head? Westbrook carried the Thunder while Darren Collison outplayed Paul many of the games. Therefore, I would rate them like this:

Westbrook: 90
Paul: 88
Rose: 85

[Charles Barkley]

Aug 28, 2014 0:14:52 GMT -5 Vlade Divac said:

I am going to accused of being bias but A. I don't give a shit and B. I don't have time right now to argue with you knuckleheads. While Rose outperformed Westbrook when healthy, there is NO WAY he should be ahead of him. With that said, Chris Paul maybe the most overrated player in the game besides Chris Bosh. Seriously, he's a whiny little cry baby who isn't that athletic and makes costly mistakes for his team. Who played better head to head? Westbrook carried the Thunder while Darren Collison outplayed Paul many of the games. Therefore, I would rate them like this:

Westbrook: 90
Paul: 88
Rose: 85

We gotta lower Kobe then, I can't remember the last time he won an MVP and he's been out a long time as well. I actually agree with Paul being way overrated but I understand the other side of the argument. But, I don't agree with lowering Rose, yet. We have to wait, that is what the IR is for.

[Tom Izzo]

I guess my whole point was Westbrook was being undervalued when you compare Paul at a 94 and Rose at a 92 to him. If you lower them so that Westbrook at a 90 is fair, then fine, but the PG ratings are a little bit skewed as is. If you keep Paul at a 94 then Westbrook has to be a 92, IMO.

[Josh Barber]

Chris Paul is at least 4 points better than Westbrook IMO. Sometimes you gotta drop the stats and just watch these guys play. And I'm not talking about 1 series, I'm talking about a body of work.

[Brian Scalabrine]

Yeah Chris Paul is clearly superior to Westbrook. Honestly we are talking about a 1 point rating change there are more pressing issues we should deal with.

[Vlade Divac]

I agree with you there Charles so maybe I was a bit hasty on lowering Rose. Honestly, I am fine with keeping him at a 93. Paul on the other hand should be lowered because of his poor play. For you pro-Paul people, how do you explain Westbrook spanking him head to head?

PS. I think Westbrook is FINE at a 90 just in case I get accused of being bias....Chris Paul = my new Chris Bosh