Rose/Westbrook War: Who Do You Take NOW?
For everyone that has been paying attention, this debate has gotten A LOT more interesting the last two months. Rose has been unstoppable scoring wise, but Westbrook has been playing out of his mind threatening triple doubles every other game. I see fewer debates on this topic the better these guys perform. NOW what do yall think?
I think you'd fine that if Westbrook did not have an all-world scorer in Durant and loads of talent around him, he wouldn't be nearly as successful. The Bulls depend on Rose to win games every night, and he's delivered - the Bulls look to have an even better record this year despite losing Ben Gordon. If Westbrook had to guide that Bulls team, and Rose had Durant, this wouldn't be a discussion. I don't think there's any debate.
C'mon stop it, too much of this topic already... Lets just wait AT LEAST a couple of years, though I'm not sure that in a couple of years this debate would be any different
We actually had a thread about this about a week ago.
I still take Rose, love Westbrook's game and his potential ... but Rose is unstoppable off the dribble and they're playing entirely different roles on their respective teams - Rose is expected to carry his team offensively on a nightly basis, that's not his natural mindset but a role he's had to learn to accept as the most talented player on his team ...
... westbrook is a good offensive player as well, but if you look at the stats you'll find that his field goal percentage is quite a bit lower than rose's ... if a team was asking westbrook to carry his team offensively every night that would put more pressure on him, he'd be a greater emphasis of the other team's defense, and i just can't imagine that he'd excel as well as rose in that role - that's not a knock on westbrook though, i love his game and his contributions to his team -- but if i have to choose between the two, i'm taking rose
You wrote "NOW" like a few seasons have passed or something lol. We have this debate like once or twice every month. Truth is, not much has really changed.
Chicago is relying on Rose very heavily right now though. He's delivering, but I don't like the way they've forced him into that scoring role. He's averaging 28 points the last five games, but they're 1-4. Deng and Hinrich are solid players, but they're overpaid and both have roles that are too big for them. The Bulls aren't that good to be honest. They need new players in there, especially another consistent offensive threat to take some of the pressure off of Rose.
Geez I just asked this question because in the first half of the season there was like a rose/westbrook thread every three seconds. It's legit to start asking who's better now that Westbrook has taken his game to another level after the all-star break and Rose is healthier and playing more to his potential.
i've been saying rose all the way since day one on this topic and that does not change. However Westbrook has been making it closer then i had predicted and both should be all-stars and have great careers. But I thnik Rose is potentially an mvp candidate once he get's another year or two under his belt and they add some more talent around him.
Thanks llperez. Do you put Tyreke in the same boat or class as Rose and Westbrook? Many people do, but I don't think he's quite there yet. I don't know why I don't cause Reke is a beast, just chalk it up to the "eye test"
i love what im seeing from reke this year. Hard to put him ahead of either rose or westbrook though at this point. I think he will be right alongside those 2 soon. He defends and gets into the lane and finishes strong. He might not be a pg, but he has done well breaking down even the best defenders in one on one situations and he is very unselfish looking to share the ball. Its close with all these guys and each of their teams are probably happy with the guy they have.
You can give me Derrick Rose. As of late, he's shown why, averaging more points and better man-to-man defense. I don't think Westbrook has gotten much better, to where you say, "wow, what got into him." Rose has done more of the expressions through his game.
U are about as wrong as two left shoes, Rose still has Joakim Noah, Brad Miller and Luol Deng, and if you actually watched the thunder games, the majority of Westbrook's assists go to James harden, Serge Ibaka,Thabo Sefolosha or Nenad Kristic, because Kevin can create his own shot and does most of the time. Everybody just assumes because Russ has KD, that Kevin gives him all of the assists but none of them obviously watches the Thunder play. Kevin and Jeff create their own shots, everybody else gets Russ's assists. Not to mention Russ can score at will all of a sudden with his much-improved mid-range game. The only thing I can truely say Rose does better than Westbrook is shoot 3pt-ers. They can pass, score, run the floor, play defense (even though Westbrook is a better defender and rebounder than rose), and handle the ball. Also people forget that Westbrook has only had 1 FULL year of playing point Guard while Rose has always played it, and Westbrook is a triple-double threat every game...just something to think about
if i want scoring i take rose if i want all around game like points reb and ast and defense i still take westbrook because those things lead more often to wins especially int he playoffs
Earlier in the season when Westbrook was outplaying Rose, I said it was Westbrook even though I've always liked Rose more. I've been watching both teams play a bunch lately and here's what I see in comparison:
Rose is able to play at the same speed as Westbrook, but he's more under control from what I've noticed.
Rose is a better natural scorer because he's able to get to the basket at a high level in pick and roll, even though teams dive all of the screens and opt to give him jumpers. It's a really impressive part of his game and shows you just how quick, strong and explosive his 1st step is. Westbrook can be forced to give up the ball and be suckered into shooting jumpers when his screens are dived in pick and roll.
Westbrook is better (or more productive) in the drive and dish. Always helps to have high level spot up shooters like Durant, Jeff Green, and a guy like Harden. Rose can drive and dish, but the Bulls shooters miss ALOT of open spot ups.
Westbrook is a better defender, even though Rose has improved in this. Westbrook and Rondo share the ability to play helpside defense, and then switch back to their man and still play outstanding on ball D. Rose hasn't shown that ability, even though he's more spectacular off the ball in transition D and when pressuring the ball at the end of games in full court man-to-man.
Rose is a better shooter. Neither can shoot 3's very well, but Rose is a much better mid-range player than Westbrook. He also has a floater that is not only better than Westbrook, but is arguably the best in the game as we type.
I think Rose is better and he's shown the ability to take over games on both ends, and he doesn't have the same level of role players Westbrook does, yet he's more efficient and effective for more parts of game. Westbrook is really good though and has an All-Star future more than likely.
I said Westbrook and got killed for it. At least people aren't saying it's a run away anymore. It really depends on what you mean by "better point guard". Westbrook is a better passer i think and his D is outstanding. Rose is a better scorer which is what most teams want out of their point guards now days. Rose is a better shooter but neither are good shooters.
If Rose still had Gordon spotting up for threes he would be getting more than 5.7 asg this year.
^i agree. peopel get point guard and scoing guard mixed up. rose is the better scoring guard westbrook is the better point guard if you go by what a pg does which is rack up assist first scoring second, make teammates better or give them the ball in the perfect position to score
I honestly think Rose is a better PG than Westbrook. Alot of the assists that Rose should get are either blown by his shooters or aren't finished at the rim by his cutters/slashers. I also think that he's not as much of a scorer as he's had to be for Chicago this season. He's never been known as a guy that was an aggressive scorer (or player for that matter) until about a 1/3 of the way into the season. Get Rose some shooters and better finishers and he'd be more productive than Westbrook. I know it.
i cant agree. he had a shooter in ben gordan last year. the thing about guys who are good at getting assist is that they get them even when they dont have a good shooter on there team. thats what makes them so good. they get assist reguardless if they have shooters or not on the floor. getting assits isnt just about getting it to a open shooter is about getting guys the ball in a perfect position to score. drive in and dish to a big man for a dunk. chi players finsh at the same rate as other pg who get assist. you can check that out if you wanna comfirm it. alot of people always say if chi hit more shots his assist would go up but they dont bother to look at sports senergy or that other stat thing to see that other guys who get more assist have more players missing open shots then rose's teammates. dont expect anyone to take my word for it so i say just go and look it up and see if im telling the truth
you can even look at the teams shooting percentages and see at home okc shoots one percentage point better then the bulls and almost the same on the road. and for some who said awhile ago that westbrook gets most of his assist from durant, watch the game. durant put the ball on the floor most of the time when he gets it which doesnt get westbrook the assist. westbrook gets his assist from putting the ball in players hands in very good positions to score
That post you made a couple of posts above was a perfect and unbiased post that I agree with infinity percent. That was a great observation of both players. Perfect post lol.
Westbrook averages more assists, but judging by the eye test... I feel Rose is the better passer. He doesn't have the elite playmaking ability of a Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Rajon Rondo or Steve Nash, but he's a very good passer. He throws passes that are on time. He doesn't overdribble, over penetrate or hold on to the ball too long. Judging by the eye test, you'd think Rose averaged 8-9 assists per game.
Quincey. Who's ever been good at getting assists with no shooters? Sounds impossible to me.
I don't think Rose ever has trouble setting up guys, but as I said, he has guys that miss alot of open shots and cutters that aren't very good finishers around the rim.
Looking at the stats, the Bulls have 3 players on their roster besides Rose right now that shoot higher than 46% (Gibson, Noah, Deng) from the field in comparison to 5 players on the Thunder (Durant, Collison, Ibaka, Krstic, Etan Thomas).
The Bulls also have 3 players on their team that shoot over 35% from 3 and one of them (Luol Deng) shoots 1 3pt shot a game, while the OKC has 3 players who shoot over 35% (Durant, Maynor, Harden).
The Bulls also have 1 player on their team currently that makes 1 3 point shot a game on average (Hinrich). The Thunder have 3 (Harden, Durant, Green).
So yes, stats do show that the Thunder have better shooters and finishers than the Bulls sir.
Rose is the better player. Westbrook has so many weaknesses that woukd be badly exposed if jhe played on a team like Rose's
Where have you been Mikenike?
Derrick Rose is the more popular player, prolific scorer, and a borderline superstar. To answer the question though, I would take Russell Westbrook. I just love his all around game especially his outstanding defense and rebounding ability. (Also same reason I like Rajon Rondo and Tyreke Evans.) Since he has such a good all around game, he doesn't need to dominate the ball on offense to be affective. I'm not saying Rose does but if you took away their scoring who would be the better player... Now I understand scoring is the name of the game but Westbrook's talents let him compliment a superstar better, like a Kevin Durant. This is the same reason why people are debating whether a Derrick Rose/Dwyane Wade back court could work in Chicago.
Now don't get me wrong, both players are great: Derrick Rose is an all star and I think Westbrook will be one soon. Ultimately though, they are different kinds of players at a similar talent level so it comes down to preference and mine is Westbrook.
You said something that was key... Westbrook is a perfect complimentary player to a superstar, while I feel Rose can be THE superstar.
"... westbrook is a good offensive player as well, but if you look at the stats you'll find that his field goal percentage is quite a bit lower than rose's ... if a team was asking westbrook to carry his team offensively every night that would put more pressure on him"
~ some of this has to do with him taking a lot of shots with the clock winding down... (although i'm sure that happens to rose too)
"You said something that was key... Westbrook is a perfect complementary player to a superstar, while I feel Rose can be THE superstar."
~ agree completely... so the question is, who else do you have on your team, because I think Rose is less valuable than westbrook is when paired with durant. (that's purely conjecture though)
"Westbrook is better (or more productive) in the drive and dish. Always helps to have high level spot up shooters like Durant, Jeff Green, and a guy like Harden"
~ it's hard to call harden a high-level shooter when he's not even hitting at 40FG% for the year... his 3FG% is good, I'll give you that. Same for Jeff Green, that is a 6'9 3-yr player hitting at 45%. that's decent but i wouldn't call it high level. DRose's starting front court (Deng, Noah, Gibson) all shoot better than 46%. Hinrich and Salmons (before trade) blew, but no worse than harden and sefolosha
you take in accoutn the whole roster not just a couple of players. you dont just pick which players you wanna pick you look at everyone that plays. thatshow you do statistics. so look at the TEAMS shooting percentage....thunder only shoots one point better at home and .002 worst away
the bucks shoot a worst percentage yet jennings is right up there in assist with rose.
devin harris is above him assist and the nets are dead last in fg percentage
Jennings doesn't average that many assists though. You said Rose's assists aren't that impressive, yet you use Jennings in your argument to say he averages almost as many assists. Jennings also benefits from having solid shooters (Ilyasova, Charlie Bell, Delfino, Ridnour) and a great finishing big man in Bogut.
I gave you all the stats that show that the Thunder have better (and more) shooters and finishers than the Bulls, yet you still disregard it. Horrible.I looked at all the players that had a worthy sample saize and listed them. I used certain players to show that they have more productive players, therefore he's more productive as a PG. Not neccessarily a better PG though
I broke my a$$ and had to lay down for a really long time...just kidding.....My laptop broke...ill be on more now though since I got a new one...thank god
J Nixon Iggy... it's ironic that i looked at the same stats as you and didn't come to the conclusion that the thunder had better shooters... quincey doesn't look at evidence, but i do, and i didn't see anything that pointed to the thunder having much better shooters. James Harden doesn't even shoot 40% overall (yes he does have a good 3FG%)... But, I'd be interested to see how much time those two guys even spend on the court together.
Before he was traded John Salmons was also hitting 3FG at a good clip (38%)... don't leave him out of this equation since he was part of that team for most of the year.
homepage of yahoo NBA: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AheZElLBrKUNt5PMfubTeFC8vLYF?slug=...
RUSSELL!!! not that this is conclusive at all, but i figured i'd share.
Look at how I listed the stats. I didn't list Harden in the players that shoot over 46% from the field stats list...I listed him in the players that shoot higher than 35% from 3 listing. I saw that Harden doesn't shoot good from the field, but I didn't list him in the grouping that said guys that shoot higher than 46% from the field. He was used to show that OKC has more (and better shooters).
i saw how you listed the stats.... i was just poking holes in your argument.
Yea, your right. I should've included Salmons though. My bad. I'll go back and edit that.
But I think the Thunder have more shooters than the Bulls and better finishers either way. No one on the Bulls team shoots 50% from the field. Not good. I wish there were stats on mid-range shots, then it would be easier to interpret the stats in this debate.
definitely... it's also important to point out that the bulls STARTING front court shoots over 46%, while Jeff Green does not. (Not that he shoots much worse than 46). But, the starting unit is the unit that id guess the PG plays the majority of his minutes with.
including etan thomas is also a little sketchy since he's only shot 60 times AND i doubt those shots all came when RW was on the floor.
i'm not sayin, i'm just sayin.
who said rose numbers arent that impressive?..my point was you cant use the excuse about roses teammates shooting low percentages when the thunder and the bulls as a team shoot almost the same percentages. you cant just use a certain group of players because rose doesnt just pass to a certain group. he passes to everyone on his team just like westbrook. you dont need great shooters to get alot of assist and you dont always get alot of assist because you have great shooters. you can rack up assist by driving and dishing to a big man. point being westbrook is a better assist man.people can say rose is the better scorer then try to use an excuse when someone says westbrook is the better assist man.
It's not realy an excuse when he has all those guys that shoot better than pretty much everybody on the Bulls team. And all those guys that can finish better than everyone on the Bulls team. I used all the guys with good enough sample sizes to include in my stats. It's not like I found some stats on just a select few guys and used it because I was hiding anything.
and the stats show that both teams shoot very close to the same percentage according to nba.com. aslo that means people can use the nonexcuse that rose isnt a better scorer then westbrook its just that rose has a worst team so he has to score more and westbrook doesnt. thats more logical then saying rose is just as good of a assist man as westbrook
Do we really need to look at shooting percentages to determine that Westbrook has better teammates, shooters, athletes and guys that can finish?
There's a hole in the shooting percentage argument too. Both teams shooting close to the same percentage means nothing to me. Rose's teammates still miss A LOT of the passes HE throws to them in positions to score.
All I can tell you is watch more games....All the stuff I'm saying is stuff that can be interpreted if you watch both teams play more often.
If Rose and Durant were on the same team, the bulls or thunder would be top 4 in their conference.
how come chris paul has more assist then other pg who have better teams then?
New Orleans revolves around Chris Paul. He has the ball in his hands every single play. Even if his team shoots a low percentage, they're still going to score points and Chris Paul is most likely going to get the assists when they do.
or does the arguement only work for rose because thats who ya'll think is better?..because i notice that certain agreements that ya'll use for rose and other guys you dont use for everyone? bascially ya'll are saying theres no way westbrook could be a better passer. and since ya'll say look at westbrooks teammates then i can easily say thats the reason rose scores more and just because he has a better scoing average doesnt mean rose is a better scorer. going by you're logic i would be correct. if bad scoring teammates is the reason he cant get as many assist as westbrook then thats the reason he can score more then westbrook
paul gets assist because hes very good at it. just like williams and magic and stocken and other pg who get alot of assist. rebounders get rebounds because they are good at it the same with scores and guys who get steals.
1. Nobody has said that there's no way that Westbrook could be a better passer. We're simply saying that Rose's assist numbers are not a good indicator of how good of a passer he is. Using the eye test, Rose is a better passer than his assist numbers indicate.
2. You're whole scoring argument doesn't make sense. Westbrook plays on a better team... He may not average as many points, but shouldn't he be shooting a higher percentage? That's something that should improve with the quality of your team because he doesn't have as much pressure or defenses focusing on him. Rose's team isn't as good, but he shoots a MUCH higher percentage than Westbrook when defense are keying in on him every single game. Westbrook would definitely average more points than he does now if he was on the Bulls, but he wouldn't do it in the manner or efficiency that Rose does. Westbrook would struggle if he was the man every night. Rose shoots in the high 40's while leading his team in field goal attempts most nights.
Chris Paul has a reliable shooter and finisher in David West, and solid shooters like Peja and Posey. On top of that he has outstanding court vision, handles and the ability to read the pick-and-roll very well.
Also, no one ever said Westbrook can NEVER be better than Rose. But this is about now. Look at the title of this topic. Who's better NOW.
i agree with the efficancy part but you dont have to be a great shooter to score. parker and rondo and others have shown you can score without being a great shooter. and i know what the topic it. i just find it funny that somepeople try to state there opinion like its fact. alot of rose fans say its rose and theres no way it is westbrook right now in reality its an opinion and there isnt any clear cut better player. there are points that favor either guy no matter how you look at it
its not like a who is better between vince or kobe. its more of a dwill and chris paul where there is no right nor wrong answer. and i think both parties understand that but start to forget once people start saying why one player is better then the other
tezo.... "He may not average as many points, but shouldn't he be shooting a higher percentage? That's something that should improve with the quality of your team because he doesn't have as much pressure or defenses focusing on him...Westbrook would definitely average more points than he does now if he was on the Bulls, but he wouldn't do it in the manner or efficiency that Rose does. Westbrook would struggle if he was the man every night"
~ i donno about you, but when i play basketball, the more shots i take, the better % i shoot. granted, i just play pickup and i'm not an NBA player, but i don't think it's that unreasonable to think that it might be easier to get a in rhythm on a nightly basis if you're taking all the shots. I know that if I haven't taken a shot for 5 minutes, it's probably not gonna go in. but, if i take a second like a minute later, there's a much better chance it goes in. again, comparing me to a basketball player is dumb, but i definitely think getting in a rhythm can make a difference for some guys.
who is the more efficant player anyway?..been trying to get on nba.com but the site is trippen