Fansided

Nylon Calculus: The Thunder are who we thought they were

By Ben Taylor

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK - SEPTEMBER 25: Paul George #13, Russell Westbrook #0 and Carmelo Anthony #7 of the Oklahoma City Thunder pose for a portrait during the 2017 NBA Media Day on September 25, 2017 at the Chesapeake Energy Arena in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this Photograph, user is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. Mandatory Copyright Notice: Copyright 2017 NBAE (Photo by Layne Murdoch/NBAE via Getty Images)
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK - SEPTEMBER 25: Paul George #13, Russell Westbrook #0 and Carmelo Anthony #7 of the Oklahoma City Thunder pose for a portrait during the 2017 NBA Media Day on September 25, 2017 at the Chesapeake Energy Arena in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this Photograph, user is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. Mandatory Copyright Notice: Copyright 2017 NBAE (Photo by Layne Murdoch/NBAE via Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit

With so much drama in the OK-C, it’s time to talk about portability. And roster construction. And the Thunder experiment, the topic of this season’s hit show “What’s wrong with that team?” After Oklahoma City’s sub-.500 start, reactions are so negative that  some even believe Paul George may be moved by the All-Star break. But really, the Thunder aren’t that far off from where they “should” be. They are who we thought they were.

The last cognitive phenomenon I added to my book, Thinking Basketball, was an effect called “star counting.” It’s a rubric we use to reduce teams to their readily-identifiable All-Stars. In the case of the Thunder, they “improved” from a lone-star team (Westbrook) to a tri-star team (Westbrook, George and Anthony), and thus, first-blush expectations thought that they improved quite a bit. But after a closer look, smart-money projections weren’t so generous.

Many prognostication models looked beyond the three big names at the team’s all-important supporting cast. They signed the punchless Raymond Felton as a second guard, Andre Roberson can’t throw it in the ocean and they lost a surprisingly productive Enes Kanter in the Carmelo swap. Before Melo arrived, Vegas opened its line at 51.5 wins, or a positive differential of 3.6 points per game. ESPN’s Kevin Pelton, partial to an RPM-based projection, pegged OKC at 49.5 wins (+2.9 point differential), good for fifth in the West. At Nylon, one of our resident AI’s forecasted 45.6 wins (+1.5 point differential) after the Carmelo trade. Projections like these are usually a touch conservative, but still, serious handicappers weren’t moved by the Thunder’s situation. And after the first trimester, OKC boasts a schedule-adjusted differential (SRS) of +2.1.

So why are they still viewed as such a disappointment? The aforementioned star counting, for one. Despite mountains of evidence that Anthony isn’t a positive player, people still react to this situation as if a three-star squad should be world-beating like the Heatles, especially with the reigning MVP on board. Which brings us back to my Calvin Broadus lede and the concept of portability (another main topic in Thinking Basketball).

Portability – a termed inspired by the portable document file (PDF), meant to be read in varying hardware and software environments – is about interfacing in different basketball environments. More specifically, it’s about players maintaining impact, or scaling up, on better and better offenses, which is critical when building championship-level teams. Anthony’s best skill, on-ball scoring, doesn’t scale well. Neither does Westbrook’s on-ball dominance, as it relies on both his skill as a passer and the skill of the shooters and finishers around him.

Westbrook hasn’t been the same in this new company. Some of these are growing pains, but portable players are less likely to suffer these aches because their malleable skills plug-and-play in new environments. Instead, Russell is tweaking on the fly; his relentless rim attacks have tapered down, and his free throw rate is the lowest it’s been since 2012. But these changes are most notable when Westbrook shares the court with Anthony, when OKC struggles and Westbrook does less. When Anthony sits on the bench, Beastbrook mostly returns (data per pbpstats):

And this is not merely a function of sharing. According to NBA.com, Westbrook’s time of possession is nearly identical to last year’s per-minute rate, while Melo and George are down by about 30 seconds a game. Scaling issues are more interactive — how is the floor spaced? who spots up in the corner? who makes the extra pass? — and Westbrook’s diminished production despite dominating the ball is a sign that the connective tissue is missing. It’s almost as if the Thunder would be better swapping Anthony for a 3-and-D wing, doubling-down on their elite defensive talent and running back their 2016-17 offense.

Next: Nylon Calculus -- Kyle Lowry is an underrated star leading an underrated team

In short, OKC’s current roster construction comes with a fairly low ceiling and they are playing almost exactly as expected. Adding Paul George but subtracting the team’s other self-generator (Oladipo) and still jumping above the 5-SRS line (55-wins) is asking way too much of George without some unexpected alchemy. And you know where it’s hard to stumble upon synergy like that? With a ball-dominant centerpiece who lacks well-fitting complementary parts.

Gin and juice time.

Ben Taylor is the founder of backpicks.com, where he’s currently running an 18-week series on the top-40 players in NBA history. His book, “Thinking Basketball,” is available on Amazon.

Home/Nylon Calculus