I agree with you - Westbrook is putting up monster numbers at a historic rate. The difference that I personally see between Westbrook this year vs 14-15 Harden is the fact that the Rockets finished #2 in the West. OKC this year, with Westbrook putting up monster numbers are likely to finish between 4-7 (crazy how 4-7 are separated by only 1 game). However, if Westbook does in fact finish the season averaging 30, 10, 10 - that's a strong case for MVP regardless of where OKC finishes in the standings.
Stephen A: "there were times Kyrie was the best on the court with Lebron" Max Kellerman: "that's only because Lebron ALLOWED Kyrie to be the best" Lebron fans are impossible to reason with at this point lol. They've already predetermined Lebron's better at everything and regardless of what the stats say is the MVP every year. Never mind Harden's stats are better in a BETTER conference on a weaker constructed roster. Lebron is Lebron and everybody else is his minions. Ok Max Kellerman
It's a strong case, but I say Harden should benefit from the same standard that hurt him 2 years ago. Curry won the MVP in large part because the Warriors ran away with the best record in the league. If the Rockets finish way ahead of the Thunder in the standings come April and Harden and Westbrook continue on their current pace, Harden should win MVP.
Except the argument for Curry was "best player on the best team." We heard it over and over. That will (most likely) NOT be the argument for Harden this year. It will be "best player on third best team" so I think that washes out. We are still making the same argument for Harden that we made that year really; he's putting up a statistically better season based on most advanced metrics and he is carrying a team ALMOST to the top despite not having the supporting cast of the other top teams. This will essentially be similar to a baseball MVP race between a guy with the best advanced metrics in the league and the second best record vs a guy who won the triple crown and won the wild card.
You are way underestimating the supporting cast that Westbrook has. Steve Adams is still one of the best Centers in the game; Oladipo is a solid 2nd or 3rd option who can provide you with 18~ 20 points on any given night; Andre Roberson is an elite defender, and could even make all-nba defensive team this year the way he's playing right now; and Kanter is an instant scoring and rebounding machine who is perfect guy to come off the bench. Why are people suddenly suggesting that we have a better roster than OKC? we don't. Before the season started, ESPN predicted OKC to end up with a better regular season record than Houston, as did everyone else in the media. Nobody thought highly of our Gordon and Anderson off-season acquisition, the only reason they are playing this well is because they are playing alongside a great playmaker and teammate in Harden, and MDA should get some credit too.
The media will find/dig for reasons to give WB MVP as far as I'm concern. When Steph got MVP over Harden two years ago, the media somehow "forgot" that the Rockets had a less talented team than the Warriors, they "forgot" our 2nd best player missed a lot of games due to injuries and we still finished 2nd in the west. No doubt Harden was the MVP that year and the players agreed (persons who actually play in the league and played against him) This season the same media predicted we would be fighting for a playoff spot at the bottom of the west. This team has proven everyone wrong and is on pace to win around 60 games. WB is putting up spectacular numbers and I agree he should be considered. Stat-wise WB has about 3 more points, 2 more rebounds than Harden. Harden has better shooting percentages across the board including field goal, 3pt and FT and pretty much even with steals and turnovers. Win-wise both teams are winning but considering the projected placement of both teams, we stand out. I agree with a statement from Van Gundy whereas he mentions if WB would to drop 1 assist or 1 reb from his season average or if Harden averages another 2 rebounds to push it to 10, will that take away or make a spectacular season respectively? In my view and it might come off as a little bias but Harden is the MVP!!!! On a team that isn't suppose to be this good, winning more games than the Thunder and with Harden putting up better numbers despite 2 rebs and 3 points less. Like I said in the beginning I won't be surprised if they give it to WB just like they did with Curry.
I'd take our role players over OKC's. Roberson is an elite defender, but is a huge liability on the other end. Ariza would be a big upgrade for them at that spot. I'll also take Gordon over Oladipo. Sabonis is a rookie that needs to start because their lack of depth at that position, Anderson is far more solid of a role player and shooter. Adams is great at defense, but pedestrian at everything else. Is he that much better than Capela? Bev, Dekker, Harrell, and Nene combined outweigh what Kanter brings to the table. IMO, we're deeper and our shooters are better. Neither team has an all-star in the supporting cast. ESPN may have rated OKC highly going into to the season, but I thought both teams would be around .500 and so far both teams have overachieved in my eyes. We've overachieved a lot more, but in my eyes Westbrook has to work a lot harder than Harden. Only Kanter can help help carry the load and he plays limited minutes off the bench because of their unbalanced roster.
Thanks for sharing this. They lost lost me when they said this was the closest MVP race for a long time. They already forgot about 2014. Additionally, they have already crowned Cavs and Warriors as the Finals. Not one of their better moments even though it favored Harden.
What if it was the other way around? What if Westbrook didn't lead the league in usage rate by a large margin and shared the ball a little bit more, then OKC would've been better off as a whole? That team Westbrook has is still way, way better than what Harden had in 14-15, yet Harden didn't even come close to Westbrook's usage rate this year, shared the ball significantly more, and we won 56 games. Whatever Westbrook is doing right now, it's definitely not more impressive than what Harden did in 14-15. Harden won 56 games with the likes of Joey Dorsey, Pablo Prigioni, Jason Terry, Corey Brewer, Kostas Papanikolaou, etc. Sometimes you need to trust your teammates to get them going; if you think you have to do everything because they suck, well then they are going to suck by definition because you didn't even give them a chance. Whenever I watch OKC games, I see virtually zero ball movement outside of Westbrook shooting and feeding his teammates. His triple double becomes less impressive when you factor in his historically high usage rate, and then you have to ask yourself, is this really the best for the team? What if OKC could be better if Westbrook changed his approach to the game? That's why he's not the MVP right now. If OKC fails to win more than 50 games, that's not overachieving anything. Before the season, everyone expected them to win somewhere between 45-50 games, and it seems like they are on pace to be just that.
Well Harden was my MVP for 14-15 and this year so far as well, so we're not in disagreement. What is more impressive to you, Harden dragging that team to 56 wins with Dwight missing half the season or being on pace to win 60+ this year? It's not all about win totals for me. Some people weigh record heavily, I balance it with supporting cast and the star's role which is why Harden was my clear MVP that year. This year, the race is closer for me. I'm incredibly impressed by Westbrook's performances. And their win percentage so far is .666, so they're on pace for a 54 win season, not 45-50. The same criticism you have about Westbrook needing to share the ball more and trust his teammates has been levied at Harden too and it's hogwash. Their teams are more successful the more the have the ball in their hands, not less. Oladipo and Adams cannot create shots at all, they need to rely on Westbrook.
Do the math again. As of now, OKC is on pace to win 49 games this season with win percentage of .600, and they had one of the easiest schedules in NBA so far. That's not impressive at all. In fact, fivethirtyeight projects OKC to win just 46 games. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2017-nba-predictions/?ex_cid=rrpromo The popular argument that Oklahoma City “needs” Westbrook more than Houston needs Harden shouldn’t hold up. The over/under projections from Las Vegas opened for this season with 45.5 wins as the baseline for Oklahoma City and 41.1 for Houston — so to act as if Houston has a vastly superior overall roster just two months later is quite disingenuous. In fact, heading into the year, the Vegas projections show that most actually preferred OKC’s roster. Houston’s roster did have more talent than most national writers believed in October. But it’s also not as loaded as the record now might make it look. The truth, as is often the case, is found in between. Yes, general manager Daryl Morey added more shooters with Eric Gordon and Ryan Anderson. Yes, D’Antoni officially moved Harden to “point guard.” But it’s still up to Harden on a nightly basis to operate as the straw that stirs the drink. “He’s the hardest player to guard in this league,” Brooks said after Harden posted his ninth triple-double of the season — and third in a row — in Houston’s come-from-behind win over the Wizards on Monday. Another way to look at it: If the NBA had a draft this week with all active players available, would anyone on Houston’s roster besides Harden go in the top 50? Sure, Trevor Ariza has been a top-50 overall player this season, given his defensive impact. But he’s a 31-year-old role player with limited upside. Perhaps Gordon is also close, considering his ability to score in bunches. But there’s not a clear secondary option, like Durant and LeBron James have in Steph Curry and Kyrie Irving, respectively. Excluding Harden, no Houston player is in the All-Star conversation. Nor is anyone on the roster likely to develop into one. Prior to the broken fibula of starting center Clint Capela, some argued that he could be Houston’s second-most important player — and the Rockets are actually winning at the same clip (6-2, .750) without Capela than they were with him (21-7, .750). Why? Because Harden. http://sports790.iheart.com/onair/t...-not-westbrook-is-the-15436496/#ixzz4UoUbnsYW
The white guy is just plain stupid He might as well just say . . I love LeBron and nothing else matters Rocket River
Before the season started I would have said that you're right. But, Capela has actually been better than Adams so far this year and putting up better numbers when you consider he's getting a few less minutes too. The main thing Adams has going for him is that he's a much better FT shooter than Capela is and he's also better at getting to the foul line. With that said, Capela's numbers are mostly better than Adams are this year. Offense rating is slightly higher, defensive ratings are the same but Capela is a better shot blocker, better rebounder, higher PER, FG%, etc. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/adamsst01.html http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/capelca01.html
I think that's because Capela is playing with Harden. Most of Capela's points come from Harden's dimes. And Adams is a better defender too. We are keep forgetting that Harden is making his teammates a lot better than they actually are. That's what great playmakers usually do.
Well, you could say that but you're also forgetting that Adams benefits from a similar PnR game with Westbrook. In the end, both players are comparable this year. Adams is a bit bigger and can move bodies more, but Clint is quicker and has more finesse to his game. Certainly, they both create matchup problems for teams but in different ways. But to say that "Adams is a lot better than Clint." is simply false.
