Kevin Durant....

[Obstructed_View]

It's true that Westbrook took more shots than Durant. But as I said in the post below this one, I'm more annoyed at the perception of efficiency being based on FGA and not on possessions used and TS%.

Explain some metric to me where what Westbrook did was remotely efficient. He took shots without ball movement, he went one on one, or one on two, he missed them, he didn't draw fouls, and he took shots away from one of the best players in the sport.

Also, when Durant shoots 90 percent from the free throw line, I'm unsure why you'd think that it would be better if his possessions went "to someone else". He's Kevin Durant, for god's sake.

[Spur|n|Austin]

I think he's a get who is a product of the refs

You think he's a misspelled sexual?

[spursfan09]

If only there was pg out there Kevin Durant could team up with who wasn't at all like Westbrook. One who knows how to effectively and efficently run the offense and take over when called upon. One who doesn't have a problem deferring to a teammate because he has no ego. One who openly confesses that he has no problem being under ther radar as long as they playing for a championship and winning them.

[Budkin]

Wonder when the Lakers are gonna get him?

[Obstructed_View]

Physically and athletically, he is a freak.

Mentally, he is extremely passive and someone of a midget.

This kind of talk after this kind of loss, where he scores more points on less than 1/2 the shots than his chucking point guard, tells me he doesn't know how to demand the ball and take over when necessary. I'm not saying go 6/24 in game 7 of the finals, but dude needs to grow a pair and put that little chimp-teammate in his place if he ever wants to ring.

He was answering a question, so you probably need to know what the question was before judging what he's doing. Also, management picked who they wanted to keep when they traded Harden. Can you blame him for not wanting to trash a championship-caliber team by turning into Shaq?

[Old School 44]

I think Durant/Westbrook relationship is going to go the way of Garnett/Marbury. As more losses pile up in big games with Westbrook taking most of the shots, the volume is going to turn up even louder on this issue. I see 1 or 2 more years tops for this combo before Presti decides it's time to break them up. Wonder who gets dealt?

[Chinook]

Explain some metric to me where what Westbrook did was remotely efficient. He took shots without ball movement, he went one on one, or one on two, he missed them, he didn't draw fouls, and he took shots away from one of the best players in the sport.

Also, when Durant shoots 90 percent from the free throw line, I'm unsure why you'd think that it would be better if his possessions went "to someone else". He's Kevin Durant, for god's sake.

I don't know what you're arguing about. I am not saying you're wrong to criticize Westbrook. I am saying that in general (as in not in defense of Westbrook), I don't like how people only look at FGA.

As far as Durant's free throws still counting as possessions, I don't think anybody in their right mind thinks that Durant shooting free throws is a wasted possession for OKC.

[Obstructed_View]

I don't know what you're arguing about. I am not saying you're wrong to criticize Westbrook. I am saying that in general (as in not in defense of Westbrook), I don't like how people only look at FGA.

You're posting in this thread talking about perception of efficiency. I apologize for thinking you did so intending to make a relevant point. Looking only at FGA when you have Westbrook on one hand and Durant on the other is really all you have to look at, but literally every other metric in the universe will back up what FGA tells you about the situation.

As far as Durant's free throws still counting as possessions, I don't think anybody in their right mind thinks that Durant shooting free throws is a wasted possession for OKC.

Then perhaps you should find a different thread to complain about it. I'll be interested to read how a guy can score 20 points on 20 field goal attempts and be efficient.

[Chinook]

You're posting in this thread talking about perception of efficiency. I apologize for thinking you did so intending to make a relevant point. Looking only at FGA when you have Westbrook on one hand and Durant on the other is really all you have to look at, but literally every other metric in the universe will back up what FGA tells you about the situation.

You're doing that whole "I didn't read carefully enough, but I'm not going to admit it and just keep arguing," thing again.

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

Another shot from the "I only look at shot attempts" crowd...smh.

Durant uses 29.7% of his team's possessions this season, and used 26.5% last night.

Agreed.

Incidentally, I've always hated the idea of not counting shooting fouls as shot attempts. I understand that it wouldn't be fair to add a shot missed from a bad foul into the shooting percentages, but I've always found it disingenuous to read things like, "He scored 20 points off only 15 shots," only to look at the stat sheet and see a 5-15 night with 10 free throws. It's like people pretend that the player didn't use the possession just because he was fouled at the end.

Just in case you don't know what the word "incidentally" means, I'll clarify that I was talking to Seventyniner and mentioned off-handedly an aspect of stats reporting that I didn't like. It was you who decided to take that remark to mean I was suggesting that using possession percentage would tell a different story than FGA in this particular case. It doesn't matter to your argument (which I have never really tried to refute), but it does matter in many other cir stances. (For example, it makes Leonard's stat line last night look about as inefficient as Westbrook's.)

Then perhaps you should find a different thread to complain about it. I'll be interested to read how a guy can score 20 points on 20 field goal attempts and be efficient.

Nope, I'm good opining here. Besides you going off for no reason, this thread seems like a perfectly acceptable place to have such a discussion. If you were to read more and respond less, you'd probably understand that.

[Obstructed_View]

You're doing that whole "I didn't read carefully enough, but I'm not going to admit it and just keep arguing," thing again.

I already apologized for thinking that your post was relevant, so I'm unsure how you think that's not an admission that I didn't read carefully enough. I did actually make the mistake of assuming you were intending to make a point relevant to the topic of conversation. Usually it's what people do on message boards. I just kind of fell into the habit. When you responded to my response by saying "yes, but...", I again made the mistake of thinking you were arguing for some reason other than to just take up space in the thread. Had you said "oh I agree with you, what I said was irrelevant to this thread" I'd have probably given up at that point. I really was trying to understand what you were saying. Again, my mistake. Your posts are incidental: Without intention or calculation. Again, sorry about that.

I now apologize for even thinking the argument you irrelevantly brought was accurate or relevant to any situation. Again, I just assumed that your position had been well-thought-out and that it had some merit in some other situation. I actually went and did the math in several different areas trying to find a scenario where one couldn't draw an accurate conclusion about a player's efficiency by simply looking at their points vs field goal attempts, and came up completely empty. I really did give you every benefit of the doubt. Not only are you wrong in every way, you're posting in the wrong thread to state it, and getting pissy because I misunderstood its irrelevancy and randomness. If it makes you feel any better, you wasted some of my time. But thank you again; I certainly learned my lesson trying to discuss something with you.

[Chinook]

I already apologized for thinking that your post was relevant, so I'm unsure how you think that's not an admission that I didn't read carefully enough. I did actually make the mistake of assuming you were intending to make a point relevant to the topic of conversation. Usually it's what people do on message boards. I just kind of fell into the habit. When you responded to my response by saying "yes, but...", I again made the mistake of thinking you were arguing for some reason other than to just take up space in the thread. Had you said "oh I agree with you, what I said was irrelevant to this thread" I'd have probably given up at that point. I really was trying to understand what you were saying. Again, my mistake. Your posts are incidental: Without intention or calculation. Again, sorry about that.

For your benefit, let's flow this thread a little bit:

1) OP posts about Durant saying that he could have taken more shots.

1A) You (and others) say that it's Westbrook's fault
1AI) Many agree with you

1AII) Seventyniner says Durant touched the ball about as much as he always does
1AIIa) I agree that he did, and I assert that efficiency should include fouls
1AIIai) You respond to me and not to Seventyniner (whose post more directly opposes yours) for some reason and say that doesn't make a difference for this game, and I agree and clarify that wasn't my argument, but you keep going. Then when you realize that I wasn't even arguing against you, you try to pretend that it was my fault you were confused.
1AIIb) You don't respond to his point at all


1B) Other people are saying the Spurs' defense was a bigger cause than Westbrook

Your line of discussion was not the thread's topic, anyway. So I don't know where you get off acting like I have to be addressing the same things you were in order to be on topic. If you had even read the post Seventyniner made carefully, you'd have realized that Durant not touching the ball really wasn't the problem. He could have touched it more, but Westbrook's ball-hogging hurt his teammates more than it did Durant. He got his, but almost no one else on the team got theirs.

I actually went and did the math in several different areas trying to find a scenario where one couldn't draw an accurate conclusion about a player's efficiency by simply looking at their points vs field goal attempts, and came up completely empty. I really did give you every benefit of the doubt. Not only are you wrong in every way, you're posting in the wrong thread to state it, and getting pissy because I misunderstood its irrelevancy and randomness. If it makes you feel any better, you wasted some of my time. But thank you again; I certainly learned my lesson trying to discuss something with you.

Once again, you're the one who misunderstood the point. If you want to try to apply it as an argument against the view that Durant didn't get the ball enough, I'll help:

Durant was efficient, but he wasn't as efficient as his Points/FGA looks. Add in his turnovers and possessions ending with him drawing a shooting foul, and he scored 26 points off 23 possessions. That's nowhere near the 2:1 ratio of points/FGA. Players who draw fouls are falsely believed to be highly efficient, but they use possessions as much as anyone else does. For a great FT shooter like Durant, that doesn't hurt him usually. But players like Dwight Howard are not terribly efficient, even though their pts/FGA ratio is high.

So in short, what you should have taken away from this thread was: Durant and Westbrook touch the ball at about the same frequency. While it's true that Durant should shoot more than Westbrook, one cannot simply look at FGA to see how much a player touches the ball. The Thunder's offense depends on Durant taking a lot of foul shots. Therefore, one has to look at FTA in conjunction with FGA to see how much of the offense if truly going through Durant. It's not a huge critique aimed at your argument against Westbrook, but it is an answer to the OP.

[Gagnrath]

Obstructed view, devolving into personal insults toward chinook just makes you look bad, especially when you were making similar points initially.

Chinook, I agree with you that shot attempts isn't a be all end all stat. That said neither is touches or possessions ended by a player.

The whole conversation here is about weather the thunder do better when Durant would be more ball dominating, I'm also not entirely sure if he was saying he needed to dominate the ball more or if he needed more touches getting others outside of him and westbrook more involved. The spurs however forced him into 5 turn overs which is considerably over his average, making the idea of Durant being more of a facilitator questionable however Westbrook would have been well served by getting the others more involved.

[SenorSpur]

Pretty much gave no credit to Kawhi and Jackson's defense on him for only "allowing" him 13 shots tonight. He said he can pretty much get any shot he wants and get to any spot on the court he wants. Their defense had nothing to do with his shot attempts. He said he could take 30 attempts if he wanted. What do you guys think?

I heard that too and I thought it was an immature attempt to dismiss his opponent. If Durant wanted to get salty with someone, he should've gotten salty with his PG. Westbrook, and this is an old, long-running story, was equally as responsible for limiting Durant's shot attempts as both Green and Leonard.

The manner in which OKC carries themselves and the comments they make, it's obvious to me that they don't really respect the Spurs. That's probably expected since they prevailed in last year's WCF They certainly have been as murderous a matchup for the Spurs, as the Heat have been to them. However, OKC's penchant for making bad basketball decisions is still present. Perhaps that, along with the absence of Harden, will be their achilles heel come playoff time. It will be interesting if and when these two teams hook up again in the playoffs.

[therealtruth]

I frankly don't undestand the max salary mentality by players (and their agents) of teams that have the chance to be contenders.
In this regard, the right way is the one that Miami players have already shown : you take a little less for having the chance to build the best team that's possible.
Neither Lebron nor Wade nor Bosh take the max, and all three of them could have had it from any other team.
The first wrong decision has been made by Durant...if he gave the example by taking less, Westbrook and Harden could have made the same...and OKC could have been in the finals for a decade, with more than a good chance to win it all (and winning is beneficial for players, that can make more money with personal sponsors).

Durant/Westbrook both made concessions in their contracts. I think they were thinking Harden would do the same.

[Chinook]

Chinook, I agree with you that shot attempts isn't a be all end all stat. That said neither is touches or possessions ended by a player.

The whole conversation here is about weather the thunder do better when Durant would be more ball dominating, I'm also not entirely sure if he was saying he needed to dominate the ball more or if he needed more touches getting others outside of him and westbrook more involved. The spurs however forced him into 5 turn overs which is considerably over his average, making the idea of Durant being more of a facilitator questionable however Westbrook would have been well served by getting the others more involved.

Pretty much. What I was saying in the above post was that Durant got his touches, while Westbrook got more than his usual amount. This suggests that the other players on the team didn't get theirs. Westbrook chucking took away shots from everyone. Just giving Durant eight of those attempts doesn't automatically mean that the team would do better. It's all about the right players getting shots organically from the offense.

I do think that possessions used is a better indicator of a player's usage, but you're right that's not the end-all, be-all. For one thing, it doesn't count assists, and that's a big part of many players' games.

[look_at_g_shred]

When this guy is defended correctly like he was the other night, he doesn't look unstoppable unless help from the whistle crew.