fastfalco382 (9 posts)  10/15/2012 2:19 AM

Hi guys,

Listening to the podcast and looking at the ADP Sheet it seems as if Westbrook is the concensus #5 pick. Buser and Phan don't really go into it in their podcast and really start talking about #6 so why is Westbrook so highly valued?

He shoots a hell of a lot and has a decent FG%, draws a ton of fouls and converts many FT's without even a remote chance of missing a game so theres that. However he is projected to turn the ball over alot, makes just a three a game, and dime only 5.8 asts as my first tier PG.

Looking at the next highly valued PG's, it seems as if Kyrie Irving is an identical player who is projected to make two three's -- albeit his FT impact and TO impact is worse than Westbrook's. Wade, whos injury prone, still isn't a huge risk like Curry and will give 50% FG% and even a block after all with slightly lower TO's.

Why does everyone seem to believe Westbrook merits being taken at 5? And if you don't believe he is, what other players deserve consideration? I think Wade despite the injuries should def be taken but it seems as if I might be underestimating that severly.

And if I do take Westbrook at 5, how should I draft moving forward? BPA is always a safe strategy but given Westy's relative lack of assists and plethora of TO's I am definitely a little concerned as to how to draft, esp with my 2nd PG

Look forward to hearing back from y'all

So-Tex (246 posts)  10/15/2012 3:49 AM

Well, I don't know if this is how Buser for Phan would take on it, but I know if you plug in settings here on BBM for 8-cat, not including TOs, Westbrook actually comes in at #4.

A lot of guys...and I mean LOT...simply don't play for TOs. If they're not consciously punting TOs, they're flat out ignoring the cat (like I pretty much do). In h2h play, one cat doesn't mean so much, and most savvy mangers can make do with punting two or three, TOs included. In roto, it's possible to build a very balanced team which actually does well in TOs, you just have to be mindful of who you draft. But again, if you're balanced in the 8 other cats, a high TO team isn't going to kill you.

So my take would be that the consensus puts Westbrook at #5 simply because a majority of managers aren't worried about his weakness (which is TOs). You got those who would be concerned about poor FT shooting, low PTS/BLKs/3s etc. But very few managers are looking to keep TOs in the green.

And besides, Westbrook still gives you solid contributions in all the other cats, except for BLKs. Projected this season: 25 PTS, 1 three, 4.8 REBs, 5.8 ASTs, 1.8 STLs, 46% FG, 83% FT. Those numbers aren't anything to sneeze at, especially stuff like the REBs and FG%, which are huge coming from the PG position.

As far as HOW you would proceed with your draft from there, I guess it really depends. You could go with a big in the 2nd round, and really build off of Westbrook's REBs and FG%, while adding BLKs and more PTS or STLs (depending on who you get). Or, you could target another PG, since you already have a small base started in REBs, and could probably wait to get a big in the 3rd - Greg Monroe, Marc Gasol might still be there, maybe Horford would fall to you if you were lucky, or you could go with Ryan Anderson and pick up more 3's.

From what I can tell, the real advantage you get by taking Westbrook 5th overall is that you could go in just about any direction without having to limit yourself right out the gate. Most of the time when you draft for strategy, it's dependent on whether you get certain guys as the draft rolls along. If you miss one or two of those guys, your options can run out pretty fast in some cases. But by taking a well rounded player like Westbrook early on, if one door/strategy closes to you, another one will still be open for you to take moving forward. Makes it a lot easier on the hair, when you don't have to worry about pulling it out after some guy just sniped your only good target for STLs!   

Just my . 

fastfalco382 (9 posts)  10/15/2012 4:52 PM

Thanks for the great response -- I didn't know Westbrook could be #4 without TO's involved. Westbrook definitely is a well rounded player even if he doesnt give the outrageous assist numbers of a CP3/DWill and I can see how much easier it is to pick players to surround him with in the immediate round.

Do you think its worth it to try and balance out his TO effect with someone like Al Horford should he fall to me at #16? Or should I simply go BPA and likely punt TO's like the majority of owners. I know for sure most of the guys in my league will definitely be punting TO's just because its a hassle after all.

rico381 (280 posts)  10/15/2012 5:27 PM

If you believe BBM's projection for Westbrook, I can see why you'd pick him at #5.  He's consistently healthy, and he's projected to put up production right in that area anyway.

Overall, though, I don't understand the Westbrook hype.  He's a guy whose best season was last year, when he ranked #18.  He doesn't have a track record of first-round production, and if people are picking him ignoring TOs, they're giving away value.  You get points for all 9 categories, and if you only aim for 8 of them, you're needlessly seriously hurting your team's chances.  I don't expect Westbrook to put together the all-around line that BBM projects; that line would be a career-high in minutes (even though Maynor is back), a career-high in FGA/min, a career-high in FG%, and a career-low in TO/min that's pretty significantly below career rates (3.3 per 36 compared to 3.7for his career).  He might reach some of those numbers, but any projection that relies on that large an improvement for a fifth-year player seems to be counting on an extreme best-case scenario where Westbrook improves more than can be expected, and Scott Brooks obliges him by giving him more minutes and more shots and the expense of Maynor and Durant respectively.

If most of your opponents are punting TOs, that's like free money sitting there.  Choose the player with better 9-cat value who slips a little too far because your leaguemates are ignoring TOs, aim for a team that's just a bit better than average there, and you'll get a 10 or 12 in the category at minimal cost, or win most weeks if you're playing H2H.  By all means, go BPA; the thing is that you should take the *actual* best player, not the "best player if you ignore turnovers", while obviously paying some attention to team balance. 

Petrocelli (302 posts)  10/15/2012 7:17 PM

I would take Westbrook, because I would be pretty certain I could get a quality center coming back.

bruin99 (201 posts)  10/15/2012 8:01 PM

Number of games count, he was ranked #18 on a per-game basis, but he was ranked #10 on a cumulative basis.  This is very important because Westbrook has never missed a game in his career.  Would you rather have had Curry last year (ranked #14 per game basis) or Westbrook (#18 per game basis)?  It's an obvious answer which is strictly based on Westbrook played all 66 games, Curry only played 26.

Now, if you look at the 9 players that ranked ahead of Westbrook in cumulative value last year - there's the obvious four which are picked ahead of Westbrook (LBJ, CP3, Durant and Love), and then you have:

• Milsap
• Al Jefferson
• Ibaka
• Ryan Anderson
• Gasol

Would you rather have any of those 5 above or Westbrook?

mbuser (4339 posts)  10/15/2012 9:02 PM

Our projections do assume that Westbrook will continue to improve at age 24, it being "more than can be expected" is a matter of opinion. His mpg have risen and he's improved his FG% every season of his career, and check that AST:TO from the second half last season. Westbrook is one of only a handful of players that could suddenly put himself squarely in the mix with the top four and only a few people would be surprised.

What's your top 12, rico?

dcdoorknob (207 posts)  10/15/2012 11:45 PM

I think there are good points on both sides.  Westbrook's stability and history of health should not be overlooked, and they certainly serve to boost his value above what his historical per-game ranks would indicate.

On the other hand I do think his BBM projections are overly optimistic and have personally put in a custom projection that has him more in the mid-late teens in per-game value, which is more in line with what I expect.  I also don't agree with the "always ignore TOs in h2h" philosopy, as I think that is just giving away value, but that is another argument.

Of those on bruin's list, I personally have Al Jefferson above Westbrook (AlJeff is my personal #5), although I am aware that I am in the minority there.  Also think a decent argument can be made for Aldridge over Westbrook in 9-cat, but again I wouldn't expect to be on the more popular side of that argument.  Wade is almost sure to be better in per-game than Westbrook, but obviously has more risk as well, so that is kinda a judgement call imo.

rico381 (280 posts)  10/16/2012 12:36 AM

@bruin99: Number of games count, but there's a reason we look at per-game value to evaluate players rather than cumulative.  Millsap ranked #4 last year, ahead of Kevin Love, in the cumulative rankings, because he played in 64 games to Love's 55.  I don't see anyone arguing for Millsap at #4, though, and for good reason; Kevin Love was far better in the games he did play, and that's way more predictable than number of games played. 

There are a few problems with ranking players by cumulative value; first of all, we have no guarantee of the number of games the players will play next year.  If we had a guarantee that Westbrook would play 82 games next year, that would count in his favor.  We don't, though.  Last year, the storyline was that there were two top picks from the 2008 draft who had never missed a game in their careers.  One of them was Westbrook, who played another 66 last year.  The other was Brook Lopez, who played in 5 games last year.

Secondly, the difference in value isn't as simple as comparing the total stats accumulated by one player to the total stats accumulated by the other.  Westbrook beat Wade in cummulative value, but Wade accumulated his stats in 49 games while Westbrook used 66 games to get his totals.  If you put even a waiver-wire backup in Wade's pace for the games he missed, that combination for 66 games beats Westbrook handily, and if you have a decent bench, or are smart about playing matchups or picking guys with opportunity, it's easy to expand that lead even more.  LaMarcus Aldridge could make the same case, to a lesser extent.  In both cases, I don't expect those guys to get as many DNPs as they did last year.

Westbrook's health is a valued asset, but it's not like we're comparing him to guys with terrible track records here.  There's a bunch of other guys with first-round value, or close to it, who haven't missed more than 5 games per season over the past three or four years, like LaMarcus Aldridge, Pau Gasol, Al Jefferson, or Paul Millsap.  There's just not a huge difference between what I expect out of someone who's averaged 0 missed games per season and someone who's averaged 4.

rico381 (280 posts)  10/16/2012 1:58 AM

@mbuser: After the first few guys (1.Durant 2a. Paul 2b. LeBron 4. Love), Kyrie Irving is the #1 guy I'd have to pick above Westbrook.  Kyrie actually ranked ahead of Westbrook in per-minute production last year as a 20-year old rookie, where Westbrook was a 23-year-old 4th year player.  He's a better-shooting version of Westbrook (FG%, FT%, and 3PM), while Westbrook's only edges were in scoring volume and steals.  You've got both of them projected for 36 mpg; I have a really hard time seeing Westbrook leapfrogging Kyrie in that situation, especially with the difference in team situation.

After that, I have a number of guys I expect to finish the year ranked above Westbrook, but I'm not sure how much to adjust for the general public's seeming overvaluing of guards, especially high-TO ones.  I see Al Jefferson, Pau Gasol, and Al Horford all finishing a little higher than Westbrook (LaMarcus Aldridge is right there with him too), but I wonder how much to adjust for "market rates".  What I mean by that is that I'd like to have a fairly balanced team, but if I know I'm going to have a choice in round 4 between, say, Kevin Garnett (#41 on the draft sheet), and, say, Nash, Ellis, Wall, and Gordon, Garnett's ADP peers on the guard side (39, 40, 43, 45, respectively), I'll take KG every time, by a huge margin.  Just look at the past few years' numbers and it's the choice between a perennial top-15 player and guys who would do well to make the top 50.  Similar choices seem to be present throughout the draft board, where the guards with big counting stats are valued way higher than their actual value says they should, so if you want to avoid putting all your value into dominating the TO category, you may have to overpay for guards on occasion.  I'd rather have Westbrook+KG than Jefferson+Ellis, for sure.  The question then becomes, is Westbrook over, say, Jefferson a lesser decline in value than what you might be forced into later if you're still low on PGs?  I think there are just enough PGs out there who I'm high on that I'll be able to put together a balanced team with a big guy in the first round, but I'll need to look into it a bit more.  Perhaps the solution is to grab several of the mid-assist, low-TO PGs with reasonable ADPs instead of a couple of the higher-assist TO-killers?

Dwyane Wade is another guy I have ranked higher than Westbrook per-game.  33 minutes was enough for him to be much more valuable than Westbrook last year. It's very hard to know what to expect in terms of DNPs, though, and that's another one I could go either way on.  Curry's in a similar situation to Wade last year, where he's likely to be so valuable by per-game numbers alone that adding a replacement-level guy for games he misses still puts him ahead of Westbrook.

I could see a case for picking Westbrook at #6, but it's a tough one, and I don't see him getting there by the numbers alone.  In terms of my projected per-game ranks, they're something like: 1. Durant 2. Paul 3. LeBron 4. Love 5. Curry 6. Irving 7-10: Al Jeff/Pau/Horford/Wade 11-13: Westbrook/Aldridge/Anderson.  I'm also a huge fan of Anthony Davis this year, and I expect him to slot in somewhere in there, where even #5 overall wouldn't surprise me, but since you can get him in the fifth round, I'll pass on him in the first.

soapyson (5 posts)  10/16/2012 4:36 AM

What are you smoking? Anthony Davis at number 5 overall?

Pau, Al Jef and Horford above Westbrook? 

So-Tex (246 posts)  10/16/2012 10:15 AM

   What are you smoking? Anthony Davis at number 5 overall?

As DC would put it, rico's being "overly optimistic". 

I can see your arguments, rico, I'll give you those...with one exception: I'm not that high on Curry at all. I'm sorry, but "The Glass Ankle" is going to have to show me something more health-wise before I jump back on that band wagon. Give me Westbrook any day, thank you.

And 3 years age difference isn't that big of a deal when you're talking 20-somethings (Irving/Westbrook). Ages 30 to 33, maybe. But ages 20 to 23? Not so much. 

And again, I'll mention the idea of building: I like the fact that I'm getting REBs from the PG position to start off a draft. It makes it easier to build off of later on down the line, as opposed to having to pay a premium for a PF/C just to get high volume REBs. Irving does well in that sense also, don't get me wrong (3.7 REBs per). But I'd rather take Westbrook and his 4.6 boards per. It just makes his overall line feel more solid.

And I like the fact that you would take Paul over LeBrat...although for h2h, I'd STILL take LBJ or Durant 1 and 2 before I'd consider Paul.

odin426 (393 posts)  10/16/2012 1:39 PM

When considering players after the top 4, do you consider the size of the league? I mean Im in a 16 team 13 roster roto league and I only have about 5 picks in the top 80, think that plays a role in who you consider in the top 10 due to position and cat availablity?

So-Tex (246 posts)  10/16/2012 4:34 PM

Yes, you should. A good example is over in this thread, where Buser, Cap, Hailfire, and myself have our BOSF squads posted. BOSF (Battle of the Sports Forums) is a 16 team, 14 player roster league. You can see there how Cap jumped on Deron Williams at the #7 pick, simply because he preferred getting a high volume AST PG with his first pick. And when you don't pick again for roughly 18 or so picks, I can see reaching for players you really want to have on your roster.

In the example we've been debating about here, it's only a 10 team standard league. In my opinion, taking Westbrook at #5 doesn't hurt you at all. Like I've been saying, it probably makes it easier to build going forward, because you're not having to consider a punt strategy, or a balanced strategy for that matter, for at least another round or so, especially if you're already ignoring TO's. If this league were a larger one, I might be more considerate of taking someone like Irving instead of Westbrook, if THAT's who I really wanted on my squad. Hell, he might even get lucky and have Irving fall back to him. It all depends on the level of skill the other managers have. And I've seen stranger things happen.

rico381 (280 posts)  10/16/2012 5:13 PM

What are you smoking? Anthony Davis at number 5 overall?

All I said was that it wouldn't surprise me.  Check his numbers at Kentucky.  We're looking at an elite shot-blocker here, with very strong steals, rebounds, and FG%, almost no TOs, and a good FT%.  That's a stellar, well-rounded line. This isn't just any old rookie; this is a concensus #1 pick, and players like that have included some of the greatest players of all time.  Look at his college stats, and he's better than guys like Mutombo and Mourning, and more on a par with, say, Duncan or Shaq, without the volume scoring.  His PER was a ridiculous 35.4 despite not shooting much and having his most valuble contributions on defense (an area PER always undervalues), he had a 139.0 ORTG and an 80.3 DRTG, and he led his team to the championship with one of the greatest seasons in college basketball history, freshman or not.  Look at what, say, Mutumbo did in his rookie year, and you'll see some seasons that would rank in or near the first round this year.  Davis was better than him in just about every category as a college player.  I'm not talking about picking him over Westbrook, but Davis is going to be an incredible fantasy basketball player, and if he's in the top 6 at the end of the year, don't say nobody warned you.

Pau, Al Jef and Horford above Westbrook?

I don't see why this is so shocking.  Westbrook's best ranking ever was #18 last year.  Al Jefferson has been higher than that for three of the past four years (with the one exception being when he came back early from an ACL tear and played hurt), including #6 last year.  You know what he'll give you at this point, and it's first round value. Pau Gasol has been a perennial first-rounder for ages, and with Nash coming to town and the Howard/Bynum exchange helping in some ways and hurting in others, I exoect to see a small boost to his numbers.  And Al Horford was a borderline first-rounder before getting injured, is at full health now, and is coming back to a team where he'll play an increased offensive role.  My projected stats for those guys place them a little higher than Westbrook.

rico381 (280 posts)  10/16/2012 5:34 PM

I can see your arguments, rico, I'll give you those...with one exception: I'm not that high on Curry at all. I'm sorry, but "The Glass Ankle" is going to have to show me something more health-wise before I jump back on that band wagon. Give me Westbrook any day, thank you.

Those rankings at the end were for per-game stats.  Since Curry beat Westbrook per-game despite only getting 28.1 minutes per game to Westbrook's 35.5, and since that was Curry's worst fantasy rank of his career at #14 while Westbrook had his best at #18, surely you'll agree that once those minute totals even out a bit, Curry will be far more valuable per-game?  The next question then becomes, how many games of Curry (+ enough games from my best bench player to fill in the remainder) will it take to be better than what is likely a full season of Westbrook, and can I expect that out of him?  By my values, Curry would have to play about 3/4 as many games as Westbrook to be more valuable overall.  I'm not sure if I can expect that, but I wasn't saying I'd pick Curry first anyway: just that I'd expect him to be significantly better per-game.

And 3 years age difference isn't that big of a deal when you're talking 20-somethings (Irving/Westbrook). Ages 30 to 33, maybe. But ages 20 to 23? Not so much. 

I'm not saying Westbrook's going to decline or anything, but that doesn't mean there isn't a significant difference in age.  Players typically make their biggest jumps from their first year to their second, and from their second to their third.  By their fifth, players generally don't change quite as much.  I just dont see how it makes sense to expect a big boost to Westbrook's numbers in his fifth season, but then expect Irving's per-minute numbers to stagnate or decline in most categories in his second season. 

And again, I'll mention the idea of building: I like the fact that I'm getting REBs from the PG position to start off a draft. It makes it easier to build off of later on down the line, as opposed to having to pay a premium for a PF/C just to get high volume REBs. Irving does well in that sense also, don't get me wrong (3.7 REBs per). But I'd rather take Westbrook and his 4.6 boards per. It just makes his overall line feel more solid.

Look at per-minute numbers for a little more illumination on this.  Westbrook averaged 4.6 rebounds per 36.  Irving averaged 4.4.  Curry averaged 4.3.  Wade averaged 5.3.  Even if you expect those guys to play a few less minutes than Westbrook, this is a difference of half a rebound at most.  Is that really going to skew your choices that much?  Isn't the boost that Irving or Curry give you in FG%, FT%, and threes woth more than that difference in rebounds, and wouldn't picking Westbrook force you to pay a premium for a high-percentage PF/C just to get on equal footing with those guys?  That's the whole reason we turn all the stats into z-scores; we can see how the value of .5 rebounds compares to, say, 1 three, or a 2% boost in FG% over 15-18 shots a game, and put it into absolute terms with one number. 

And I like the fact that you would take Paul over LeBrat...although for h2h, I'd STILL take LBJ or Durant 1 and 2 before I'd consider Paul.

Nothing against LeBron, I'm just not 100% sure whether he'll be able to keep up the 53% shooting.  It's pretty much a tie, though.

odin426 (393 posts)  10/16/2012 11:35 PM

thanks So-Tex! Ill check that thread out.

fastfalco382 (9 posts)  10/18/2012 1:00 PM

Going off the topic here but should Love drop to me at 5 because he'll miss 4-6 weeks of the season, should I take him? Or is it the same logic with D-Wade missing such a significant portion of time that he isn't worth drafting based on per-game value?

If not I believe I will take Westbrook and try to force a trade for Jefferson to try and win TO's based on the fact his counting stats/brand name/ and pick # will probably allow me to get some greater value for him. The people I'm playing with are mostly new to the game and will surely punt TO's.