Can DeMar surpass Harden?

[ddaylewis]

Who they are as people affects who they are as players, and that's what I'm focusing on. I don't care if either is a good guy, or however they are off the court, but whoever they are clearly influences the way they, and their team, plays. And this is visible because we can see how the team plays. We can see Harden yell at one of his teammates for "missing" a defensive assignment that was actually Harden's. We can see a team that lacks defensive cohesiveness and accountability, and just wants to run and play a fun offensive game.

Don't lose sight of what is unmeasurable. Because that is the easiest thing to overlook. You ignore because you can say "oh, it's hard to know exactly what the impact is and how to quantify it"...but it's pretty easily quantified by the fact that no championship team has ever had poor leadership from it's star players, and tons star players have "led" teams to perennial playoff appearances without ever breaking through as real contenders or championship teams (and admittedly, this is sometimes on the lack of talent on a team, not poor leadership).

1st bold point: Doesn't that sound a little oxymoronic? Not saying you're wrong, but we're still going in the same circle. I'm not ignoring. I'm just not willing to make conclusions without data.

2nd bold point: Come on. Shaq won 4 titles. He's no one's idea of a leader. However, he was a tremendously fantastic basketball player who played on teams that fit his skillset well. I think you'll find that throughout the history of sports, championship teams have always been littered with tremendously productive players, not necessarily tremendous leadership.

[YoungGunRaptor]

I pretty much categorically disagree with everything you said here, which traces back to my last post. That's cool. I can see why Harden is a particular divisive player.

You can run circles around Harden and Howards' perceived personalities, and how their teammates play for them. There's no right answer to that because we don't know enough about these players.

But I implore you and everyone else here to not overlook the fact that Harden and Howard have won everywhere they've gone, and they have tremendously positive impacts on the game that is easy to see by the eye test and whatever statistical measure you'd like to use.

Don't get so caught up in who you think they are as people. They're basketball players. Harden and Howard are tremendous basketball players who have consistently won. DeRozan may reach that one day, but isn't there. Don't lose sight of what is so patently obvious and measurable.

You are truly underestimating the value of leadership, especially in basketball. Im going to assume that you have never played the sport at an organized level, because if you did, you would understand how important it is to have a character with the ability to lead on a team.

Its one thing to have a player who can put the ball in the basket. Its another thing completely to have a player who can rally his or her team and help elevate their game to another level. Imagine if the Rockets had the chemistry that the Raptors possessed last season: they would have had a much deeper playoff run. Why? Because if Howard could have shut down Aldridge (on the defensive end), and Harden could have played with consistency offensively, they could have gotten past the Blazers. Notice how both Howard and Harden were unable to lead the Rockets in the aspects of the game that they are considered to be strong at. That is not what defines leadership.

Now lets look at Derozan for a minute. In the second playoff game of his career, with 5 fouls and with the Nets being poised to take a 2-0 lead, he came in and stepped up his game. 30 points, in his second playoff game. It wasn't the prettiest shooting night, but he got the job done. He led the Raptors to victory.

Game 4. The Raptors are winning but the Nets are about to come back and take the lead. The Raptors get 3 straight defensive stops. Derozan takes a charge on Joe Johnson.

And this is just Derozan. I can talk about Vasquez's big shots in games 2 and 5. I can talk about Amir's game 7 performance and his defensive hustle that was prevalent throughout the series. I can talk about Lowry dropping 36 on the Nets in game 5. I can talk about JV averaging a double double, or Ross, despite his struggles, putting the Raptors in a position to win game 7. I can go on, and on. The point his, every player on the Raptors squad stepped up, and this intensity, accountability, and integrity was lead by Derozan and Lowry.

Furthermore, the comments made by Harden and Howard this offseason (Off the court) did not exemplify their on court excellence. Think about it: if they consider themselves to be the stars of the team, then they should therefore be expecting more from themselves correct? Therefore was there ever a point where they rallied their team and called them out, expecting more from them from an on court perspective? Absolutely not.

Kobe Bryant has made it clear that he expects Lin to work hard on the defensive end of the floor. Kobe at age 36 cannot guard the Lillards, Curry's, Paul's, Rose's and Lowry's of the league. We all know that he would, his mentality and career achievements are testament to that. But Kobe is now looking to his teammates to deliver the excellence that he expects not only from himself, but from his team.



To sum it up, I believe that white men is absolutely correct in what he has asserted. Kevin Love dropped 26 and 12 last season, but he took the Timberwolves no where. In fact, in 6 seasons, he has never even reached the playoffs. Does his statistical excellence make him a better player than Lamarcus Aldridge? Not at all.

Numbers don't lie, but sometimes its about how you get them that matters.

[white men can't jump]

1st bold point: Doesn't that sound a little oxymoronic? Not saying you're wrong, but we're still going in the same circle. I'm not ignoring. I'm just not willing to make conclusions without data.

2nd bold point: Come on. Shaq won 4 titles. He's no one's idea of a leader. However, he was a tremendously fantastic basketball player who played on teams that fit his skillset well. I think you'll find that throughout the history of sports, championship teams have always been littered with tremendously productive players, not necessarily tremendous leadership.

I wouldn't say Shaq wasn't a leader. He was a character, and a prima donna, but he led by example, always played hard, was a factor on both ends, and valued winning championships more than anything. His dominant game matched a dominant personaltiy that gave his teammates confidence...Guys liked playing with/for Shaq because they had faith in him and that he would do all he could to lead them to success, which in turn brought out the same in them. And that team also had Kobe, who again, despite his prickly nature has always seen that translate into solid leadership. And while I myself argue stars are more key, it doesn't hurt to have a plethora of quality vets like Fisher, Horry, Ron Harper, etc....Along with the greatest coach of all time (where you make up most of any leadership deficit from your players, and again, where Houston really blows).

And I don't think it's oxymoronic at all. Basketball still has the most gaps in terms of what the data available simply fails to capture in any meaningful way. There is no set of data that would help you predict a Spurs team lacking in any spectacular talents (because of age, both for their 3 aging stars, and the youth of their one budding star whose game is far from a finished product) and a crop of wholly average role player talents would be the best team in the league and beat the team with the most frontloaded (in terms of going down the depth chart) talent in the league. The data would be telling you for like the past 4-5 years that their team should've dropped off in success even just because of age (which countless analysts for these past few years have, at every season, said would cause them to decline because they just wouldn't be able to make up for the fading skills of their stars)....but here they are.

The big reason for this is the interdependence of players and how much multiple pieces play a role in any single event that happens on the court. Thus these gaps in data are failing to measure exactly what we're discussing may be a result of better leadership....cohesiveness and ability to deal with events on both ends of the court as a team. That doesn't mean because they're hard/impossible to measure we should ignore them as factors to success, or avoid using them in our evaluations of players and teams. It just means there's more grey area and more difficulty in reaching consensus.

[iblastoff]

Look, this is a largely subjective debate. You can say personality flows through the players on the court, but that's your opinion. You're really just extrapolating their skills and making a case on their personality because we don't know enough about most of these players' personalities to have any other basis of judgement. 95 percent of what you see of these players happens on the court, so that's all you have to base your opinions on.

But where we differ is how willing we are to embrace an answer. I don't think there's enough personal information gleamed from watching them play alone, so I'm happy to plead ignorance. You, on the other hand, are fully ready to draw conclusions on these players as people, their dynamic as to how they interact with others off the court, and their sensibilities based off their play style.

And again, that's fine. I'll stick with what I know for sure: Harden scores at a very elite level and can handle point guard responsibilities. I also know that he's won repeatedly in the Western Conference, including taking the Rockets to 45 wins with a brand new set of mediocre teammates. DeRozan, on the other hand, hasn't proven he can come close to the level of scorer Harden is, and while he is a better defender (though still sub-par overall), has led his team to 48 wins once in an abjectly worse conference.

Edit: Sub-par is selling DeRozan short. He's worked his way up to average. I should grant him that.

i really don't think he did. lowry was the leader last year, no question about it.

[NaijaBoy17]

this is bullshit.

compare shot charts of the last season:
demar:


harden:


not only is harden a slightly better finisher at the rim, he also got closer to the rim WAY more than demar did (449 vs 380).

demars shot chart looks absolutely horrible and is only higher than league average from a corner 3 area from where he only took 22 shots. he is WAY more dependent on getting to the line than harden is.

Actually using that shot chart isn't really accurate.

Here are the facts: Harden is much better at actually getting to the rim, but DeRozan is better at finishing at the rim.

Attempts from 0-3FT per Basketball Reference
DeMar (15.3% of total shot attempts, 71.2% FG)
Harden (27.3% of total shot attempts, 63.2% FG)

What makes Harden better imo is the fact that the bulk of his shot attempts (67.4%) are either shots at the rim or 3 pointers, and he's very efficient from both areas. DeRozan is a slightly better finisher statistically, but only a combined 29.9% of his shots are at the rim or 3s... and he's not nearly as good at shooting 3s.

[white men can't jump]

i really don't think he did. lowry was the leader last year, no question about it.

I think DeMar's leadership is overlooked and underrated. He's clearly not as vocal, or as animated on the court, as Lowry (EDIT: who at this point is clearly the primary leader). However, between how his teammates talk about him, and the limited insight we can get from things like the "Open gym" specials, DeMar's leadership is clearly a significant factor in the team's direction.

[iblastoff]

I think DeMar's leadership is overlooked and underrated. He's clearly not as vocal, or as animated on the court, as Lowry (EDIT: who at this point is clearly the primary leader). However, between how his teammates talk about him, and the limited insight we can get from things like the "Open gym" specials, DeMar's leadership is clearly a significant factor in the team's direction.

i've no doubt demars game/personality off and on the court is a factor but regardless, as you said, lowry is clearly the primary leader. demar may have gotten the all-star nod, but it seems most people see lowry as the one who lead the raptors to the playoffs.

[chico]

i've no doubt demars game/personality off and on the court is a factor but regardless, as you said, lowry is clearly the primary leader. demar may have gotten the all-star nod, but it seems most people see lowry as the one who lead the raptors to the playoffs.

He didn't say Lowry is clearly the primary leader, but whatever.

Who are these "most people" you speak of? Because the people who have actual insight to the leadership of the team, players, coaches, management, ALL refer to the two being a leadership team, and ALL players, including Lowry, migrate to work out with DeMar in the off season. The people who actually know what goes on behind the scenes seem to think he's a lot more than "a factor".

[mountio]

I wouldn't say Shaq wasn't a leader. He was a character, and a prima donna, but he led by example, always played hard, was a factor on both ends, and valued winning championships more than anything. His dominant game matched a dominant personaltiy that gave his teammates confidence...Guys liked playing with/for Shaq because they had faith in him and that he would do all he could to lead them to success, which in turn brought out the same in them. And that team also had Kobe, who again, despite his prickly nature has always seen that translate into solid leadership. And while I myself argue stars are more key, it doesn't hurt to have a plethora of quality vets like Fisher, Horry, Ron Harper, etc....Along with the greatest coach of all time (where you make up most of any leadership deficit from your players, and again, where Houston really blows).

And I don't think it's oxymoronic at all. Basketball still has the most gaps in terms of what the data available simply fails to capture in any meaningful way. There is no set of data that would help you predict a Spurs team lacking in any spectacular talents (because of age, both for their 3 aging stars, and the youth of their one budding star whose game is far from a finished product) and a crop of wholly average role player talents would be the best team in the league and beat the team with the most frontloaded (in terms of going down the depth chart) talent in the league. The data would be telling you for like the past 4-5 years that their team should've dropped off in success even just because of age (which countless analysts for these past few years have, at every season, said would cause them to decline because they just wouldn't be able to make up for the fading skills of their stars)....but here they are.

The big reason for this is the interdependence of players and how much multiple pieces play a role in any single event that happens on the court. Thus these gaps in data are failing to measure exactly what we're discussing may be a result of better leadership....cohesiveness and ability to deal with events on both ends of the court as a team. That doesn't mean because they're hard/impossible to measure we should ignore them as factors to success, or avoid using them in our evaluations of players and teams. It just means there's more grey area and more difficulty in reaching consensus.

I have found the back and forth between you and BillyLou to be interesting. For the most part, Im more on his side, but there is no doubt you bring up some good points. However, I think the biggest leap of faith is suggesting that DD is somehow great (or frankly even average) in terms of leadership skills and ability to raise the level of his team. Outside of last season, he hasnt led this team to anything. Even last season, to the playoffs only to get upset by guys who HAVE actually proved an ability to show these qualities (as much as I hate them, you cant argue that fact with PP and KG in particular).

Sure JH hasnt set the league on fire in terms of intangibles either, but in my mind, at least so far, they are probably a push (both in the bottom half of guys) on these intangible factors alone. Remember that Harden was (and still is) beloved by his old OKC teamates and only when throw into a Houston situation where he was a one man show pre DH did he become "selfish" and a "bad leader". I think the evidence is inconclusive at best on both and thus you go to talent and ability on the court, where JH blows away DD at this point.

[Fully]

So much drivel in this thread.

We don't have to tear down Harden to give DeRozan props. This always seems to happen when these conversations pop up.

Harden is an awesome player. Offensively one of the 4 or 5 best in the league. DeRozan has a chance to some day reach his level, but it's not a particularly big one. Still, DD is one of the best SGs in the league and we should be ecstatic that we have him regardless of how he measures up against Harden.

[mountio]

So much drivel in this thread.

We don't have to tear down Harden to give DeRozan props. This always seems to happen when these conversations pop up.

Harden is an awesome player. Offensively one of the 4 or 5 best in the league. DeRozan has a chance to some day reach his level, but it's not a particularly big one. Still, DD is one of the best SGs in the league and we should be ecstatic that we have him regardless of how he measures up against Harden.

Very well said. It annoys me that I feel like I have to trash DD in order to drive home a realistic point. DD is a great SG .. but Harden is the best SG in the league. Nothing wrong with DD being worse than him at all.

[JordanMariam14]

Has anyone noticed DeMar's 3 point shot get better so far or is that just me?

[DanH]

Has anyone noticed DeMar's 3 point shot get better so far or is that just me?

He's making them very well in preseason. But he's had early season stretches that didn't translate to a full year before.

[iblastoff]

He didn't say Lowry is clearly the primary leader, but whatever.

try reading.

I think DeMar's leadership is overlooked and underrated. He's clearly not as vocal, or as animated on the court, as Lowry (EDIT: who at this point is clearly the primary leader). However, between how his teammates talk about him, and the limited insight we can get from things like the "Open gym" specials, DeMar's leadership is clearly a significant factor in the team's direction.

Who are these "most people" you speak of? Because the people who have actual insight to the leadership of the team, players, coaches, management, ALL refer to the two being a leadership team, and ALL players, including Lowry, migrate to work out with DeMar in the off season. The people who actually know what goes on behind the scenes seem to think he's a lot more than "a factor".

as for "most people"? i would say the majority of people here considered last years push to be mainly in lowrys hands. even most press (even local/canadian press) call lowry the leader of the team.

as for people who have 'actual insight to the leadership of the team'?

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/basketball/...deal-1.2781948

Guard DeMar DeRozan is the only all-star on Toronto's roster, but general manager Masai Ujiri understands that it's Lowry who's the team's heart and soul.

[chico]

Pretty sleezy on the wmcj post edit lads. no effing way was that there at the time stamp. smh, cowardly too

iblastoff, the rest of that is too comical to discuss further. you win, ha