FantasyBallFan

Russell Westbrook 2018-2019 Season Outlook

Recommended Posts

Just now, MayorMcCheese said:

 

I was leaning that way, but if they didn't rule him out until today and if they really did prepare 2 game plans for opening night (1 with RW, 1 without) as Billy Donovan says they did, seems like he was probably really close to playing and may have a good chance of suiting up on Fri. 

 

Fair. It's a tough call. Two games of Westbrook is better than two games from just about any other rando schmuck who's on a team with two games this week. I guess I was basing my opinion on what I would do if I ran the Thunder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoping we see he participsted in 5-5 contact in the next few days, until than he Westy won’t be playing sadly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scienze said:

 

 

its really not debatable .. more playing time typically results in more turnovers

 

so let’s say you’re looking at the waiver wire..

 

you got big 1 who plays 20

minutes per game, and he gets you 7-7 with 1 block and 1.5 turnovers

 

then you got big 2 who plays 30 minutes and puts up 10-10 with 1.3 blocks, but 3 turnovers 

 

when you punt turnovers, you are going to take the guy who gets 30 minutes and 3 turnovers over 20 minutes and 1.5 turnovers 

 

i don’t see how you can try n disagree with that .. punting turnovers definitively makes it easier to collect stats everywhere else.  

 

 

There are two different axis we are talking about: high usage and efficiency.  An example of an efficient, high usage player would be Davis or Curry.  An example of an efficient, low usage player would be Otto.  An example of an inefficient, high usage player would be Westbrook meaning he misses shots at a higher volume and commits more TO.  You're concluding from this that high usage=more TO.  But it's not inherently the case, there's only a weak correlation between usage and TO.  TO correlates to inefficiency more than it does to playing time.  The real combination is high usage + Inefficient player=killed TO.  In your hypothetical, almost no one is taking an overall worse player merely because he commits fewer TO.  So that's a strawman.  The real issue at hand is whether one should take Westbrook who not only kills your TO but your FG and FT as well (and does so on high volume) with a second round pick.  Compared to the other players in that range he is elite in points, rebounds, assists, and arguably steals while contributing little in blocks and is average in threes for a guard...while killing you in all three efficiency cats.  I think in spotting your opponent 3 efficiency cats you're putting yourself in too big of a hole to overcome most of the time and you're spending a pricey pick to do so.  If there were a few players who were bad in TO but not any other efficiency category then I would be ok taking him.  But generally punting TO  also comes with punting FG as well and I'm not ok using an early second to put him in a position where I'm now punting two if not three categories right off the bat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StifleTower2 said:

There are two different axis we are talking about: high usage and efficiency.  An example of an efficient, high usage player would be Davis or Curry.  An example of an efficient, low usage player would be Otto.  An example of an inefficient, high usage player would be Westbrook meaning he misses shots at a higher volume and commits more TO.  You're concluding from this that high usage=more TO.  But it's not inherently the case, there's only a weak correlation between usage and TO.  TO correlates to inefficiency more than it does to playing time.  The real combination is high usage + Inefficient player=killed TO.  In your hypothetical, almost no one is taking an overall worse player merely because he commits fewer TO.  So that's a strawman.  The real issue at hand is whether one should take Westbrook who not only kills your TO but your FG and FT as well (and does so on high volume) with a second round pick.  Compared to the other players in that range he is elite in points, rebounds, assists, and arguably steals while contributing little in blocks and is average in threes for a guard...while killing you in all three efficiency cats.  I think in spotting your opponent 3 efficiency cats you're putting yourself in too big of a hole to overcome most of the time and you're spending a pricey pick to do so.  If there were a few players who were bad in TO but not any other efficiency category then I would be ok taking him.  But generally punting TO  also comes with punting FG as well and I'm not ok using an early second to put him in a position where I'm now punting two if not three categories right off the bat.

 

 

the problem here is that you’re only looking at top round level players .. towards the end of the draft and on the waiver wire, the higher usage rate players TYPICALLY have higher turnovers too.. now, i use the word typically because there are always outliers. but in general terms, you will have a much easier time collecting counting stats towards the end of your draft and off the waiver wire if you punt turnovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Royce Young
Watched Russell Westbrook go through his full pregame routine. Looked like himself physically, throwing down a two-handed dunk and moving well. But the jumper was a bit rusty, especially the pull-up. Some pretty bad misses, including a few airballs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chud12 said:

Royce Young
Watched Russell Westbrook go through his full pregame routine. Looked like himself physically, throwing down a two-handed dunk and moving well. But the jumper was a bit rusty, especially the pull-up. Some pretty bad misses, including a few airballs.

So absolutely no difference from his norm?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StifleTower2 said:

So absolutely no difference from his norm?

 

Lol yup, I am guessing we see him in the next game or 2. Sounds like hes close.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chud12 said:

 

Lol yup, I am guessing we see him in the next game or 2. Sounds like hes close.

Great!  Can’t wait to watch him miss 5 foot jumpers by 4 feet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StifleTower2 said:

There are two different axis we are talking about: high usage and efficiency.  An example of an efficient, high usage player would be Davis or Curry.  An example of an efficient, low usage player would be Otto.  An example of an inefficient, high usage player would be Westbrook meaning he misses shots at a higher volume and commits more TO.  You're concluding from this that high usage=more TO.  But it's not inherently the case, there's only a weak correlation between usage and TO.  TO correlates to inefficiency more than it does to playing time.  The real combination is high usage + Inefficient player=killed TO.  In your hypothetical, almost no one is taking an overall worse player merely because he commits fewer TO.  So that's a strawman.  The real issue at hand is whether one should take Westbrook who not only kills your TO but your FG and FT as well (and does so on high volume) with a second round pick.  Compared to the other players in that range he is elite in points, rebounds, assists, and arguably steals while contributing little in blocks and is average in threes for a guard...while killing you in all three efficiency cats.  I think in spotting your opponent 3 efficiency cats you're putting yourself in too big of a hole to overcome most of the time and you're spending a pricey pick to do so.  If there were a few players who were bad in TO but not any other efficiency category then I would be ok taking him.  But generally punting TO  also comes with punting FG as well and I'm not ok using an early second to put him in a position where I'm now punting two if not three categories right off the bat.

 

Good post. I like your logic but I think Westbrook is still a solid pick at the end of the first in H2H. I consider FG and TO to be inherently streaky categories compared to most others. Often in FG the best and worst teams are separated by maybe 4%? That’s sometimes winnable when your guys are on hot streaks in a 7 day matchup.

 

When picking at the end of the first I find it hard to compete with the teams who have elite players, and it’s easy to end up weak in either points or big man stats. Westbrook presents a solution with his elite counting stats, and there are plenty of shooting bigs to pair with him. Side note, I really like getting Cousins or Porzingis too, gives you a chance to be elite in most of the counting cats come playoff time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, stopmakingsense said:

 

Good post. I like your logic but I think Westbrook is still a solid pick at the end of the first in H2H. I consider FG and TO to be inherently streaky categories compared to most others. Often in FG the best and worst teams are separated by maybe 4%? That’s sometimes winnable when your guys are on hot streaks in a 7 day matchup.

 

When picking at the end of the first I find it hard to compete with the teams who have elite players, and it’s easy to end up weak in either points or big man stats. Westbrook presents a solution with his elite counting stats, and there are plenty of shooting bigs to pair with him. Side note, I really like getting Cousins or Porzingis too, gives you a chance to be elite in most of the counting cats come playoff time.

 

No doubt, he's a perfectly viable pick there. This whole discussion started about him being a higher pick -- I disagree, but he's not a TERRIBLE pick above the turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, terribleswedes said:

 

No doubt, he's a perfectly viable pick there. This whole discussion started about him being a higher pick -- I disagree, but he's not a TERRIBLE pick above the turn.

 

Not sure how how the discussion started since I jumped in late, but the post I quoted said they would avoid him early 2nd round. I was responding to that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, stopmakingsense said:

 

Not sure how how the discussion started since I jumped in late, but the post I quoted said they would avoid him early 2nd round. I was responding to that.

I was referring to 9 cat roto.  I wouldn't pick Westbrook in the second round (or the auction equivalent $50ish) in a 9 cat roto league.  H2H I wouldn't criticize someone for making that pick but I would if their roster construction made no sense to me.  I think if you got someone like Harden in the first round, Westbrook would be a gift in the second round, punt FG/TO, dominate the little man stats and get blocks later.  Likewise he'd be a good pairing to Giannis, LeBron, or Simmons and punt FT/TO.  Or if you were in a deeper 16 man league get Drummond/Westbrook and punt FT/TO.  But if I got AD, Towns, Curry, or Jokic  I wouldn't want to destroy my efficiency.  I would put him in the same tier as Drummond, someone who absolutely dominates certain counting stats but is only really viable in certain punt builds.  Just like Drummond he's not really that desirable in roto although I would be willing to draft him and punt if he were cheap enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StifleTower2 said:

I was referring to 9 cat roto.  I wouldn't pick Westbrook in the second round (or the auction equivalent $50ish) in a 9 cat roto league.  H2H I wouldn't criticize someone for making that pick but I would if their roster construction made no sense to me.  I think if you got someone like Harden in the first round, Westbrook would be a gift in the second round, punt FG/TO, dominate the little man stats and get blocks later.  Likewise he'd be a good pairing to Giannis, LeBron, or Simmons and punt FT/TO.  Or if you were in a deeper 16 man league get Drummond/Westbrook and punt FT/TO.  But if I got AD, Towns, Curry, or Jokic  I wouldn't want to destroy my efficiency.  I would put him in the same tier as Drummond, someone who absolutely dominates certain counting stats but is only really viable in certain punt builds.  Just like Drummond he's not really that desirable in roto although I would be willing to draft him and punt if he were cheap enough.

 

 

westbrook has never been a punt FT guy

 

last year was an outlier my friend 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, scienze said:

 

 

westbrook has never been a punt FT guy

 

last year was an outlier my friend 

So you say.  He wasn’t previously but they changed the FT rules.  Who’s to say last year was an outlier and not the future?  Also, an entire season long is an awful long outlier.  One game is an outlier, one season is a big sample size. 

Edited by StifleTower2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StifleTower2 said:

So you say.  He wasn’t previously but they changed the FT rules.  Who’s to say last year was an outlier and not the future?  Also, an entire season long is an awful long outlier.  One game is an outlier, one season is a big sample size. 

 

He shot 80.6% (199/247) from Feb through the end of the post-season so he seemed to get himself back on track. He was basically sub-par for a few months last year. A few months out of a 10 year career is not a big sample size.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fletch44 said:

 

He shot 80.6% (199/247) from Feb through the end of the post-season so he seemed to get himself back on track. He was basically sub-par for a few months last year. A few months out of a 10 year career is not a big sample size.

The first half of your statement makes sense while the second doesn’t.  Whether something is a statistically relevant sample size is objective, even if there is a larger sample with contrary evidence if a sample size is large enough it cannot be ignored. I think what you’re saying is that we have a large body of evidence across his entire career that supersedes the smaller sample but that doesn’t mean the smaller sample size is irrelevant.  An outlier is one anamolous event within a larger sample size.  An 82 game season is not one event it’s 82 separate events so it cannot be dismissed as merely an outlier.  If he shot 80% from the line on his career then went 0/8 in one game then that would be an outlier.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StifleTower2 said:

So you say.  He wasn’t previously but they changed the FT rules.  Who’s to say last year was an outlier and not the future?  Also, an entire season long is an awful long outlier.  One game is an outlier, one season is a big sample size. 

 

 

it was really only half a season .. he started off terribly. in february, march, and april, he was right back on track. 

 

i have a feeling he’s not a punt ft guy based on what he’s done his entire career .. we’ll see though 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, StifleTower2 said:

The first half of your statement makes sense while the second doesn’t.  Whether something is a statistically relevant sample size is objective, even if there is a larger sample with contrary evidence if a sample size is large enough it cannot be ignored. I think what you’re saying is that we have a large body of evidence across his entire career that supersedes the smaller sample but that doesn’t mean the smaller sample size is irrelevant.  An outlier is one anamolous event within a larger sample size.  An 82 game season is not one event it’s 82 separate events so it cannot be dismissed as merely an outlier.  If he shot 80% from the line on his career then went 0/8 in one game then that would be an outlier.

 

 

lol i hate when people try to overcomplexify the simplest things 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, scienze said:

 

 

it was really only half a season .. he started off terribly. in february, march, and april, he was right back on track. 

 

i have a feeling he’s not a punt ft guy based on what he’s done his entire career .. we’ll see though 

I have no problem with this.  If you want to render your personal opinion that you think he will hit FT going forward, I can't object.  I also think people need to be more clear in their language and not so dismissive of counter arguments.  41 games is not an outlier, that's an incorrect usage of the term.  You can call it overcomplicating things if you wish but I don't think it is overcomplicating things to show when one is using a term incorrectly particularly when they're using it to have a dismissive attitude regarding something you've said.

Edited by StifleTower2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StifleTower2 said:

I have no problem with this.  If you want to render your personal opinion that you think he will hit FT going forward, I can't object.  I also think people need to be more clear in their language and not so dismissive of counter arguments.  41 games is not an outlier, that's an incorrect usage of the term.  You can call it overcomplicating things if you wish but I don't think is overcomplicating things to show when one is using a term incorrectly particularly when they're using it to have a dismissive attitude regarding something you've said.

 

outlier = a person or thing differing from all other members of a particular group or set.

 

so it was definitely an outlier season when compared to the rest of his career. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scienze said:

 

outlier = a person or thing differing from all other members of a particular group or set.

 

so it was definitely an outlier season when compared to the rest of his career. 

I see that you just googled the definition.  That's the usage in layman's terms.  However, as we are using it regarding statistics it would behoove us to use the correct usage as it applies to statistics which is: a data point on a graph or in a set of results that is very much bigger or smaller than the next nearest data point.  

In this case I would argue that each game is an independent data point.  You would argue an entire season is a data point and you can define things as you wish.  I just think that it doesn't make sense to do so given that the generally accepted sample size for a sample to be statistically relevant is 30+.  If you expand your data point to being an entire season then no NBA player has a large enough body of work for us to know what he is likely do as we don't have a sufficiently large sample size.  I hope you can see why defining an entire season as a data point wouldn't work for us studying fantasy basketball.  But if you count each game as a data point, which I think you should, it makes a lot more sense.  The only problem is that doesn't fit your narrative of half a season being an outlier.  My argument is that half a season can't be an outlier as it's 41 separate data points.  I hope you can see why defining things properly matters and it's not merely overcomplicating things.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, StifleTower2 said:

I see that you just googled the definition.  That's the usage in layman's terms.  However, as we are using it regarding statistics it would behoove us to use the correct usage as it applies to statistics which is: a data point on a graph or in a set of results that is very much bigger or smaller than the next nearest data point.  

In this case I would argue that each game is an independent data point.  You would argue an entire season is a data point and you can define things as you wish.  I just think that it doesn't make sense to do so given that the generally accepted sample size for a sample to be statistically relevant is 30+.  If you expand your data point to being an entire season then no NBA player has a large enough body of work for us to know what he is likely do as we don't have a sufficiently large sample size.  I hope you can see why defining an entire season as a data point wouldn't work for us studying fantasy basketball.  But if you count each game as a data point, which I think you should, it makes a lot more sense.  The only problem is that doesn't fit your narrative of half a season being an outlier.  My argument is that half a season can't be an outlier as it's 41 separate data points.  I hope you can see why defining things properly matters and it's not merely overcomplicating things.  

 

 

again, trying to overcomplexify a simple concept .. come on, now. we don’t need an essay on the definition of outlier, talking about “data points” and “statistical relevance” LOL. 0.5 out of 10 seasons is an outlier. period. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, scienze said:

 

 

again, trying to overcomplexify a simple concept .. come on, now. we don’t need an essay on the definition of outlier, talking about “data points” and “statistical relevance” LOL. 0.5 out of 10 seasons is an outlier. period. 

You’re wrong. But for the sake of keeping the peace, just as I would in my marriage, I’ll pick my battles. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.