In the latest installment of the NBA Front Office series, Tom Penn (playing the role of GM), Chad Ford (assistant GM), Amin Elhassan (scouting director), Kevin Pelton (analytics director) and David Thorpe (senior consultant) discuss point guards Russell Westbrook and Stephen Curry.
Want in on the conversation or have a question for one of the guys? Use #NBAFrontOffice.
Question: Would you rather build a team with Russell Westbrook or Stephen Curry?
Tom Penn: OK, guys, our owner has tasked us to build a team from scratch and we have the enviable choice of Russell Westbrook or Stephen Curry to be our point guard. Whom do we select and build around?
Chad Ford: That's a crazy-tough call. I'd probably pick Curry. I love Westbrook and would have him on my team any day. But if I could choose only one, I'd go with Curry.
Penn: Well, both are fantastic. This is a hard call, and I would be thrilled with either. But I'll take Westbrook. He just plays so hard on both ends all the time. That is contagious. He is the best athlete in the league, and his skills are so vast and improving.
Kevin Pelton: I'd select Curry as well. Because of his shooting ability, he's just as valuable playing off the ball as he is with it in his hands. Westbrook, by contrast, largely needs the ball in his hands to be at his best. He's made it work playing with another of the league's best scorers his entire career, so this is hardly a knock on Westbrook. But it's slightly easier to build a team around Curry's skill set.
David Thorpe: These guys are too close to pick one over the other without knowing who else my team has, what my coach wants from our point guard, etc. Curry is the premier passer/shooter/scorer on the planet today, a skilled combination guard who helps everyone around him play better. Westbrook is the league's top competitor, and is physically the most gifted point guard in league history. Energy and intensity are skills just as important as shooting and ballhandling.
Amin Elhassan: Curry, for reasons that I'm sure will shock many. Beyond the obvious (Curry's a much more efficient player, and a better playmaker for others), there are two reasons: defense and durability. While Westbrook is an impressive physical specimen, he actually underachieves on the defensive end and is a less-than-conscientious team defender, often getting caught ball watching and missing rotations or getting beat backdoor. Curry has made vast improvements with his on-ball defense, and he always has been an alert and aware help defender.
The durability part of the equation is sure to raise some eyebrows, but if we can set aside the "eye test" (one Adonis versus a spindly, baby-faced kid), we'll see that not only has Westbrook suffered more serious injuries (the torn meniscus and arthroscopic surgery in his left knee), but has a more physically taxing style that is high impact and high stress. Curry has had his issues in the past with his ankles, but doesn't put nearly the same kind of punishment on his joints that Westbrook does.
Question: What skills or traits win out?
Penn: So Amin, you kind of answered part of my next question. What skills or traits would make you select one over the other? To me, Westbrook's drive and passion is a differentiating NBA skill. I can't recall a player who plays all out all the time like Westbrook. That level of professionalism and passion are nearly impossible to find.
Pelton: The case for Westbrook is the breadth of his skill set, as evidenced by his recent triple-double binge. He's a far superior rebounder, and has the potential to be a lockdown defender when he really commits to that end of the floor. But Curry isn't weak in either of those areas, and he has more of an advantage in terms of shooting than Westbrook does in any area.
Ford: I love shooters and Curry is my favorite shooter in the game. I also love players who can really see the floor and that has become such an underrated part of Curry's game. It's hard to believe coming out of college that scouts were concerned about whether he was a real point guard. Westbrook also has developed tremendously in this area, but I believe Curry sees the floor better than Westbrook.
Elhassan: Agreed. Shooting, shooting, shooting, shooting and shooting. Beyond shooting, Curry's decision-making in pick-and-roll situations, his ability to deliver passes accurately, on time and on target with either hand makes him a constant threat, regardless of what direction he's facing. He has the best or second-best handles in the NBA (along with Kyrie Irving), an ability to create space with his skill that pure athleticism (like Westbrook's) could never consistently create. And did I mention his shooting?
Thorpe: If I had a really skilled team, such as the Hawks for instance, then I'd prefer Westbrook. He helps teammates to compete harder and with more passion, and surrounding him with shooters gives him even more room to make plays. A very athletic team, but less skilled, such as Philadelphia or to a lesser extent, Houston, would be perfect for Curry. His passing talent can turn teammates who struggle to score into more potent weapons.
Question: How did you rate them coming out of college?
Penn: Chad, you mentioned the draft and how scouts viewed Curry. Who did you like better coming out of his respective draft -- Westbrook in 2008 or Curry in 2009? I can tell you I preferred Westbrook. I recall scouting him at Pauley, and I wrote the word "wow" four times during the game. I've never done that. He had jaw-dropping athleticism then and now. We tried to trade up to get him but OKC smartly grabbed him early.
Ford: I gave the Sonics an A-minus on draft night for taking Westbrook in 2008. And I gave the Warriors an incomplete for taking Curry in 2009 (there were rumors the Warriors were going to trade Curry to the Suns on draft night). I liked both players a lot, and memory is fuzzy, but I think I had Westbrook rated slightly higher.
Pelton: I liked Curry better. I didn't see Westbrook as anything more than a defense-minded role player. I can't say I was a huge Curry fan, either, but his numbers as a sophomore were excellent and his junior season demonstrated that he could play point guard in the NBA.
"
Simply put, we would have liked to have Westbrook, but we were dying to have Curry.
"-- Amin Elhassan
Elhassan: In Phoenix, we coveted both players as potential future franchise cornerstones. I had questions about Westbrook coming out of UCLA; I recognized he had incredible talent that hadn't been tapped in college, and that he would be a force of nature. What I didn't know was if he would ever become a good enough decision-maker on the floor. Well, it turns out he was every bit the force of nature, to the point where at most times his decision-making doesn't matter. Meanwhile, Curry was a player in which we affectionately called "Black Nash" because of the eerie similarities to Nash in their games and on-court demeanor. Questions about Curry's ability to deal with NBA physicality quickly gave way when you realized how special a talent he was, especially cerebrally. Simply put, we would have liked to have Westbrook, but we were dying to have Curry.
Thorpe: I didn't have a good feel for Westbrook coming out, because the system he was in at UCLA masked some of his potential. But I loved Curry, as I also suggested he was the next Steve Nash. I now I realize he could be even better thanks to his improved efforts on defense. That teams didn't see his true point guard talent is proof that the NBA does not have a monopoly on talent evaluators.
Question: What's the ideal offensive scheme for Westbrook and Curry?
Penn: David, you've pointed out how the cast each guy would have around him would make a big difference. What would be the ideal offensive scheme you'd want around Curry and Westbrook?
Thorpe: The systems would be identical save one small wrinkle: Each guy needs to play fast, taking advantage of his skill and in Westbrook's case his athleticism with lots of 3-point shooters surrounding him. Giving Westbrook significant and consistent post-up options is the only system change I'd want. He can learn to be devastating when operating in the mid-post to pinch-post area.
Elhassan: Curry is in his ideal system right now: a pick-and-roll heavy offense that also utilizes his incredible ability to operate off-ball, coming off screens. Surround him with shooters and high basketball IQ players who also can similarly keep moving without the ball. Westbrook is in a good situation as well, in an up-tempo offense that is light in structure, allowing his brilliance to shine. But I would like to see more set plays, and more uses of him off-ball, to make it harder for the defense to zero in on him. I'm not saying they should be running flex in Oklahoma City, but just some more half-court sets where the offense isn't stagnant with the other four players just watching Russ be Russ.
Ford: I'd agree with that assessment. They are currently both in the perfect offensive schemes for their skill sets. Steve Kerr's system has helped free up Curry even more and allowed him to be the MVP candidate that he is. And for all of the grief Scott Brooks takes for letting Westbrook dominate the ball, he knows that's exactly the system that works best for Westbrook. He needs the ball in his hands. They both have their coaches to partly thank for them becoming the players they are.
Pelton: Curry can play in basically any offense, though the ideal one would feature the numbers of shooters and playmakers the Warriors have to give Curry maximum space to operate on the perimeter. As Chad said, Westbrook is best in a system that puts the ball in his hands as much as possible and gives him a good roll man to dish to when he draws defensive attention. Enes Kanter has thrived in that role. Of course, shooting is preferable around Westbrook, too.
Penn: Kevin, I agree with you about Kanter, but I would love to add a complementary post player who can play back to the basket. Westbrook also would need shooters everywhere and a stretch 4 who can open up driving lanes, and another wing attacker to take some pressure off of him. And of course, we would want Kevin Durant if possible out there with him.
Thorpe: Speaking of Durant, I've spent some time closely watching Oklahoma City. Both Westbrook and Curry are well liked off the court -- that is clear. Westbrook is moody and angry on court but generally gentle off of it, approachable for sure. It's similar on court, as he is not quick to blame others despite his overt desire to win. He isn't a ball mover but he often makes the right pass to a scorer if that is the right play. Curry, however, seems like a blast to play with, fun-loving and totally about the team. He too will not pass the ball just to get it moving as often as he will if his pass will lead to an assist.
Elhassan: I think that's because Curry plays in a system that makes his targets more available, and it takes advantage of his passing ability as such. Meanwhile, Westbrook's targets are more like safety valves, escape routes in case his initial forays are rebuffed. Curry's ability to intake information, process and make decisions in a split second makes him an excellent recognizer of open passing lanes, even when they don't seem apparent to mortal eyes. Westbrook is more likely to find his passing lanes by forcing the defense to react and collapse, then finding the open man.
Ford: Well, Westbrook might break the record for usage rate this season. He's the most ball-dominant guard in the league and despite his gaudy assist totals of late, his primary game is still about putting the ball in the basket.
Question: Who's the front-runner for MVP?
Penn: So who's got the edge on the MVP award? Curry is my MVP. He has been the best player on by far the best team. He is the most entertaining and fun player in the league. I will pay to watch him. Every time I see him, he does something special, something extraordinary. He is a magician with the ball.
Pelton: Agreed -- no question it's Curry. While there's a debate about which player has been better this season, value is a different question. Because of Westbrook's injuries, Curry has played 300 more minutes this season, which is hugely valuable to his team. I would additionally say Curry has been better on a per-minute basis. He's got the league's best real plus-minus and rates better in WARP per minute, despite Westbrook's superior PER.
Elhassan: Curry. He's the best player on the best team in the league, and it's not even close. The Warriors are on pace to finish the season outscoring opponents by 10-plus points per game, a feat that has been accomplished just seven times in NBA history -- and six of those times the team went on to win the championship (the seventh, the 1972 Bucks, lost to another on the list, the 1972 Lakers). Curry is by far the most integral part of the Warriors' success, as his on/off numbers will attest to. Furthermore, Curry has been sensational all season long while Westbrook's great play has come mainly in the past two months. I'd have to reward the guy who has been consistently great.