James Harden discussion (from Howard & Paul dinner thread)

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

Really enjoying reading this back and forth between you two...

[Sothron]

Speaking of Harden: if a guy is only good at drawing fouls/finishing around the rim and shooting threes and otherwise is a poor shooter in midrange but he shoots the majority of his shots at either the ram or three point range....what's the harm? It isn't like there is an inverse relationship that he can finish/shoot threes BUT settles for bad mid range shots (Josh Smith cough).

[phoostal]

I wonder if Dwight and Paul were talking about how good Harden is at dinner? If not, they click on this thread.

[NBASupes]

Speaking of Harden: if a guy is only good at drawing fouls/finishing around the rim and shooting threes and otherwise is a poor shooter in midrange but he shoots the majority of his shots at either the ram or three point range....what's the harm? It isn't like there is an inverse relationship that he can finish/shoot threes BUT settles for bad mid range shots (Josh Smith cough).

Those guys are not championship players is the problem. They are easy for a good to very good defense to shut down and they have heavily limitations in big games. As for the regular season, nothing is wrong with James Harden game but if he overall is hurting you in the regular season then he struggles offensively in the post season. What's his redemming value? Nothing. He becomes what Jamal was for us v. Chicago after Game 1 but worse they are paying him max money.

[NBASupes]

George is not a stud offensive player. Stats tell the story very well on that. He shot less than 42% from the floor and scored at a modest .531 TS% (Gerald Henderson, Jeremy Lin, JR Smith territory). George had a lower assist % and a higher TO% than Harden. Harden had 9.8 offensive win shares to 2.7 offensive win shares for George. So Harden scored more, scored more efficiently per shot, passed better, turned the ball over less (when adjusted for pace), and actually led his less talented team to a similar record (49 wins for IND to 45 wins for HOU).

George isn't in Harden's realm offensively anymore than Harden is in his defensively.

Never claim George was a stud offensively. Not once. He is a stud overall and is better than Harden but he's not an offensive stud nor is he close. His game lacks a go-to move. He lacks consistency offensively. He seems to go into sleep mode offensively when he is not involved.

What George can give you are top notch defense, excellent teamwork, good BBIQ, and good offense with elite size and length for position. Nice handles to boot and can attack the paint at times and draw fouls at a decent rate.

[Admin]

Really enjoying reading this back and forth between you two...

Man I'm loving it too! AHF has a new arch-nemesis the way that me and several others use to argue with Macecase Exodus. This is definitely fun though. Leadership I gotta say I am really glad you joined the site as you bring in an element that was missing.

[KB21]

What is interesting is that not only is James Harden one of the more efficient shooting guards in the NBA, he's also the 2nd highest rated shooting guard when it comes to defensive plays (steals + blocks + drawn charges). Defensive plays are important relative to winning because, with the exception of blocks that end up going back to the other team or OOB, defensive plays stop opponent possessions and start offensive possessions for your team.

James Harden had 193 combined defensive plays this past year. Only Andre Iguodala had more at 200 defensive plays. Dwyane Wade was 3rd and Tony Allen was 4th.

So, here is a guy who is an efficient scoring guard that also makes defensive plays, and he's not a championship player? Horse Spit!!

James Harden was more important to OKC's success than the overrated shot chucker Russell Westbrook.

[Admin]

James Harden was more important to OKC's success than the overrated shot chucker Russell Westbrook.

Really? With Harden the Thunder had a .712 regular season winning percentage last year. Without him they had a .732 regular season winning percentage this year.

With Westbrook (this year) the Thunder were 1-2 with a 1 point loss (road), 10 point loss (home) and 17 point win (home) against the Grizzlies in the regular season but in the playoffs were 1-4 against the Grizzlies without him.

With Harden (plus Lin and Asik) this year, Houston had a .549 winning percentage and squeaked into the playoffs by 2 games, where they lost in 6 to Westbrook and the Thunder. Last year, without Harden (and Lin and Asik), Houston had a .515 winning percentage and missed the playoffs by 2 games.

I like Harden a lot but his impact is being greatly overblown here. The Thunder were better without him and the Rockets were barely better with him and 2 other upgrade starters and more experienced young players.

[capstone21]

Really? With Harden the Thunder had a .712 regular season winning percentage last year. Without him they had a .732 regular season winning percentage this year.

With Westbrook (this year) the Thunder were 1-2 with a 1 point loss (road), 10 point loss (home) and 17 point win (home) against the Grizzlies in the regular season but in the playoffs were 1-4 against the Grizzlies without him.

With Harden (plus Lin and Asik) this year, Houston had a .549 winning percentage and squeaked into the playoffs by 2 games, where they lost in 6 to Westbrook and the Thunder. Last year, without Harden (and Lin and Asik), Houston had a .515 winning percentage and missed the playoffs by 2 games.

I like Harden a lot but his impact is being greatly overblown here. The Thunder were better without him and the Rockets were barely better with him and 2 other upgrade starters and more experienced young players.

Westbrook had Durant

[KB21]

Really? With Harden the Thunder had a .712 regular season winning percentage last year. Without him they had a .732 regular season winning percentage this year.

With Westbrook (this year) the Thunder were 1-2 with a 1 point loss (road), 10 point loss (home) and 17 point win (home) against the Grizzlies in the regular season but in the playoffs were 1-4 against the Grizzlies without him.

With Harden (plus Lin and Asik) this year, Houston had a .549 winning percentage and squeaked into the playoffs by 2 games, where they lost in 6 to Westbrook and the Thunder. Last year, without Harden (and Lin and Asik), Houston had a .515 winning percentage and missed the playoffs by 2 games.

I like Harden a lot but his impact is being greatly overblown here. The Thunder were better without him and the Rockets were barely better with him and 2 other upgrade starters and more experienced young players.

With him, OKC played for the NBA Championship. Without him, they were put out in the 2nd round.

[capstone21]

With him, OKC played for the NBA Championship. Without him, they were put out in the 2nd round.

Its hard to quantify because the NBA championship contender had both Westbrook and Harden (not to mention Durant) but the question is...would OKC be better w/o Westbrook and instead have Harden in there....

I don't know

[Admin]

Westbrook had Durant

The year before he had Durant AND Harden though. The 2011 OKC team was clearly more talented and yet had a lower winning percentage. The 2012 Rockets were far more talented than the 2011 team and were only moderately better.

With him, OKC played for the NBA Championship. Without him, they were put out in the 2nd round.

Oh so let's forget about Westbrook then. With Westbrook OKC was a shoe in for the finals this year but he gets hurt and they go down. This is hilarious how far you guys are going to overstate his impact.

[Admin]

Its hard to quantify because the NBA championship contender had both Westbrook and Harden (not to mention Durant) but the question is...would OKC be better w/o Westbrook and instead have Harden in there....

I don't know

It's easy, OKC got better without Harden and Houston barely got better with Harden AND Lin AND Asik. If not for Westbrook getting hurt they would have given San Antonio a hell of a fight and probably would have beaten them.

[NBASupes]

What is interesting is that not only is James Harden one of the more efficient shooting guards in the NBA, he's also the 2nd highest rated shooting guard when it comes to defensive plays (steals + blocks + drawn charges). Defensive plays are important relative to winning because, with the exception of blocks that end up going back to the other team or OOB, defensive plays stop opponent possessions and start offensive possessions for your team.

James Harden had 193 combined defensive plays this past year. Only Andre Iguodala had more at 200 defensive plays. Dwyane Wade was 3rd and Tony Allen was 4th.

So, here is a guy who is an efficient scoring guard that also makes defensive plays, and he's not a championship player? Horse Spit!!

James Harden was more important to OKC's success than the overrated shot chucker Russell Westbrook.

This is the most ridiculous try to make someone something they aren't since somewhat tried to tell me that Steve Nash is not a bad defender. It's amazing how little Basketball you watch if you really think this would override his terrible defensive rotations, PnR defense, off ball defense, and his overall defensive impact.

I see you are trying to make something for more than what it is but winning players have winning impact. Harden doesn't have any winning impact whatsoever. None. Zero. Nada. His team is better with him on the bench while he has one of the largest gaps in terms of outproducting his opponent. His game is extremely predictable, and his usage is extremely high and he struggles without the ball and when he's not in transition. I am not ever going to drink the Kool-Aid on Harden. Ever.

[Sothron]

I feel like there's two topics in one thread at this point.

[NBASupes]

Westbrook is one of the most impactful players in the NBA. He is clearly a championship player. He isn't someone you call a cornerstone as their are like four of those and used to be six till Kobe and Wade regressed.

Bron

Durant

D12

Duncan

Westbrook is a championship player and a franchise player. He can be the best or 2nd best on a championship team.

There are about 15-20 franchise players in the NBA. Atlanta has one with Horf. Indy has two with Hibbert and PG. Chi- two, NY- one, Hou- zero, LAC- two and CP3 is really a cornerstone talent, Brooklyn- one, GS- One and could be two, SAS- two, Manu was 3, OKC, one, Minny- One and could be two, etc...

Harden is stat player. He is in the same boat with Al Jefferson, prime Jamal Crawford, Mitch Richmond, and Z-Bo before Memphis. Not have a positive impact on wins and losses unless in the optimium situation. For Harden, that's off the bench as a 6th man like he was in OKC.

[Admin]

I feel like there's two topics in one thread at this point.

Yes there is and I'm gonna split them out into a new topic in the appropriate forum as we've really gotten off track in this thread!

[EazyRoc]

Westbrook is one of the most impactful players in the NBA. He is clearly a championship player. He isn't someone you call a cornerstone as their are like four of those and used to be six till Kobe and Wade regressed. BronDurantD12Duncan Westbrook is a championship player and a franchise player. He can be the best or 2nd best on a championship team. There are about 15-20 franchise players in the NBA. Atlanta has one with Horf. Indy has two with Hibbert and PG. Chi- two, NY- one, Hou- zero, LAC- two and CP3 is really a cornerstone talent, Brooklyn- one, GS- One and could be two, SAS- two, Manu was 3, OKC, one, Minny- One and could be two, etc... Harden is stat player. He is in the same boat with Al Jefferson, prime Jamal Crawford, Mitch Richmond, and Z-Bo before Memphis. Not have a positive impact on wins and losses unless in the optimium situation. For Harden, that's off the bench as a 6th man like he was in OKC.

Westbrook is not the most impactful player or any of that. Westbrook is essentially Monta Ellis, but as slightly better defender. If the Thunder were smart, they would have tried to move him for Dwight and kept Harden.

[JETSET]

Westbrook is not the most impactful player or any of that. Westbrook is essentially Monta Ellis, but as slightly better defender. If the Thunder were smart, they would have tried to move him for Dwight and kept Harden.

You can't be serious.

Westbrook > Harden when it comes to game impact and it's not even close. Comparing Westbrook to Ellis, SMH quit trolling.

[NBASupes]

Westbrook is not the most impactful player or any of that. Westbrook is essentially Monta Ellis, but as slightly better defender. If the Thunder were smart, they would have tried to move him for Dwight and kept Harden.

Not sure if you are serious?

Ellis barely outproduces his opponent and his team is better with him on the court than off it even if he not much help on the court as well.

Westbrook greatly outproduces his opponent while being much better for his team on the court than off it. While Westbrook team is still a good team without him, they are a great team with him.

Ellis doesn't have close to that impact but Ellis does have a positive impact. Ellis team impact is say just as valuable as Harden. Ellis isn't a good man defender at all but he pass off the ball defense well and he doesn't miss rotations a lot. With that said, Harden overall impact is much greater than Ellis and much less than Westbrook.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Leadership