Westbrook's Headlines Don't Equate to an MVP

Dean Oliver, Author Basketball on Paper
Dateline: 04/04/2017

With a headline like that, my introduction is pretty simple: I don’t hate Russell Westbrook. Honestly. The guy is tremendous, truly one of the best players in the NBA and one of the best athletes to ever play. I would want this guy on my team.

But he shouldn’t win the MVP this year.

I don’t usually care about this award but this year's race and Westbrook's candidacy in it has brought out something in me. I think it's because his support is built on a headline: "Averages a Triple Double." That headline alone is enough to sway an enormous number of people to vote for him as MVP. I argue below why a triple double is misleading and how history doesn't support him as MVP. That's what a basketball article should be about. But know that I'm thinking beyond that to the ever growing culture of headlines used as evidence.

So let me start with some basketball history.

The two players that Westbrook is getting compared to are Oscar Robertson in 1962, who averaged a triple double, and Tiny Archibald in 1973, who led the league in scoring and assists. Both were great players, as is Westbrook. But neither of them won the MVP, both finishing third. Neither was on a very good team either, with Robertson on a team about like Westbrook's - a lower seeded playoff team. Both players shot more than they ever did in their careers, but MVP voters knew that shooting more doesn't make you an MVP.

In Robertson’s and Archibald’s case, at least, the team was better than it was the year before. That is importantly not the case for Westbrook, where his Thunder have gone from a 55-win team to something in the mid-40’s. We know the reason why the Thunder declined, too, and it's at least indirectly due to Westbrook. Because of his individual style of basketball, the team’s other superstar chose to leave last summer to go to the unselfish Warriors. MVP voters shouldn't reward a player that became even more individual-oriented after running off a star because of his own individual play.

By the way, if Durant were still in OKC, would Westbrook even be MVP of his team?

That may not be a fair hypothetical, so let's get back to, uh, a more fair hypothetical.

Is Westbrook actually a better player than he was last year or is he really just the same guy in a different context? Now that Durant is in Oakland, Westbrook doesn't have to share stats with him and he can take an extra six shots per game and be more ball dominant. Westbrook is scoring an extra 8 points per game but he’s shooting worse and turning it over more. His overall efficiency on offense is actually down as is the team’s offensive efficiency. Westbrook's supporters blame the lack of a supporting cast. But when every one of his teammates from last year is having a worse season than the one before (by win shares/48 minutes), that should make the MVP voters question his influence on their development.

Now about those triple doubles... Westbrook’s triple doubles have less meaning to winning than other players' triple doubles. The chart below shows his triple doubles and the number of points he added to the team and you can see 11 games where he actually cost them points - through turnovers, missed shots, bad defense, etc. Not entirely coincidentally, the Thunder have been outscored with Westbrook on the court in 11 of his 40 triple doubles (the red bars on the plot). This is a higher rate than for other players when getting triple doubles this year. In 24 of Westbrook's triple doubles, he has shot under 40% effective or committed at least 7 turnovers. The rest of the league has 68 triple doubles and only 16 of those involved a player with 7+ turnovers or worse than 40% shooting. If MVP voters go for Westbrook because of his per-game averages in points, rebounds, and assists, they are falling for the headling and ignoring a lot of very meaningful stats, including turnovers, shooting percentage, efficiency, and wins.

By the way, the reason Westbrook is getting triple doubles this year is because he improved his rebounding. He averaged a double double last year. His rebounding rose from about 8 per game in 2016 to 10.6. But about 0.7 of that is because of a massive increase in defensive rebounds on free throws, the easiest and least meaningful rebounds to get. He had 37 of these last year, as opposed to 89 and counting this year, leading the NBA by a huge margin. If he didn’t go for these cheap rebounds as much, he wouldn’t be challenging the Big O for most triple doubles in a season - that headline would be gone. It's not as though those extra 52 free throw defensive rebounds got the Thunder more wins either. If winning is what we most mean by "valuable," MVP voters shouldn't award him if his triple doubles and many of his rebounds are not as much about winning.

Let's ignore the cheap rebounds and give him credit for them and that headline. Giving a player an MVP because his rebounds went up while his efficiency went down – that may be unprecedented. The great Michael Jordan had a season in 1989 where he upped his rebounding by about the same amount as Westbrook. He averaged 32.5-8.0-8.0 and was far more efficient than Westbrook this year - shooting better and committing fewer turnovers. But his Bulls got worse and he finished second in the MVP race. Finishing second in a stupid individual award is ok. Use it as motivation to win a title, if you have to. But don't try to game the award system when the only award that matters is winning a title. That's a better headline, too.

The NBA is about as good as it has been stylistically. We have teams like the Warriors and Spurs who move well off the ball, pass generously, space the floor well inside and out, and defend without being ugly physical. It would be wrong to give the NBA's premier award to a player whose style is so different from what is making the league so great right now.

Russell Westbrook is having a historic individual season and is a great player. But his season isn’t a good representation of what makes the league so great right now and he isn't the Most Valuable.

Now go summarize that in 140 characters.


Front Page | Articles | Coaching/Scouting | B'Ball Hoopla | Methods | Stats | About JoBS | Feedback

Copyright © 1995-forever, L. Dean Oliver, All Rights Reserved. Do not duplicate or redistribute in any form.