What was Cuban really saying? HAWKS 104, CELTICS 92
Mark Cuban declined to bestow superstar status on Russell Westbrook Monday night.
Soon enough, Westbrook dropped an epic stat line on Dallas (36 points, 12 rebounds, nine assists) and Kevin Durant delivered the now-famous line “he’s an idiot” about the Mavs owner. Call it a Cuban sandwich.
Lost in the ridicule surrounding Cuban’s statement was his actual definition.
Some have speculated Cuban’s master plan was to get into Westbrook’s head. I don’t buy it. Mind games don’t seem to be Cuban’s method of operation. He’s outgoing, opinionated, powerful and in demand. Thus Cuban can, and does, say whatever’s on his mind. He’s got an agenda, no doubt, but there is no evidence to suggest that Cuban plays games with his words.
So I say Cuban believes what he said. It’s unconventional to think Westbrook is not a superstar. But Cuban had a reason for saying it. And here’s his reasoning:
“Russell’s certainly an All-Star, but I consider Durant a superstar,” Cuban said. “You look at Dirk all those years to now, he carries teams to 50 wins. To me, that’s (what makes a superstar) … when you by yourself … it wasn’t until we got J-Kidd (Jason Kidd) that we had another Hall of Famer. So, to go the 15 years where Dirk won 50, that’s a superstar. There’s only a few guys that you put them on any team and they’ll win 50 games. To me that’s the definition of a superstar.”
With a few days of perspective, the next step is to not dwell on the “idiot” part of the adventure — though that’s the best quotation in Thunder history — but to ask a question. Does Westbrook fall below the Cuban standard of superstar, using Cuban’s own criteria?
It’s a little difficult. You could argue that Michael Jordan went unproven, since his greatness came when Jordan was paired with Scottie Pippen. Using Cuban’s standard, why is Durant a superstar and Westbrook not? Durant hasn’t lifted the Thunder to 50 wins without Westbrook.
That’s the shell game part of Cuban’s statement. It’s a theory built to boost Dirk, not trash Westbrook. Cuban is right about Nowitzki, in that he was brilliant for 15 years in keeping the Mavs ultracompetitive, without a ton of elite talent around him. Dirk absolutely is a superstar. Does that mean players with a ton of elite talent around them are not a superstar?
Durant never had to be like Dirk. Westbrook did. Last season.
The walls came crumbling down in Loud City last season. The plagues of Egypt descended on the Thunder. Durant missed most of the season with injuries. Westbrook missed 15 games. Serge Ibaka missed the final 18. Steven Adams missed 12. Deadline trades remade the roster but triggered a restart. It was a wild season that no one ever wants to repeat.
But it was a decent test case for the Cuban theory.
The Thunder last season went 45-37, which falls short of the Cuban superstar standard. But Westbrook missed those 15 games and, remember, he played less than nine minutes in the season’s second game after breaking his hand.
In those 16 games, the Thunder went 5-11. So OKC’s record with Westbrook was 40-26. That’s a winning percentage of .606, which equate to a 50-win season. Of course, Westbrook had Durant alongside him for some of those games. Durant played in 27 games last season. Westbrook was available in all 27. The Thunder was 18-9 in those games.
So Westbrook as the sole star last season led the Thunder to a 22-17 record. That’s a 46-win season. Just under the Cuban threshold.
Ibaka missed those 18 games down the stretch, and without him, the Thunder defense collapsed. OKC went 10-8 without Serge. With Ibaka but without Durant, Westbrook’s record was 12-9, a 47-win pace. Again, below the Cuban threshold.
It’s a small sample size. The whole theory is a small sample size.
Carmelo Anthony led Denver to three 50-win seasons in seven years and the Knicks to one 50-win season in five years. Does that make Carmelo a superstar? Does it indict him as not a superstar?
Chris Paul led the Hornets to one 50-win season in five years. In Los Angeles, and Blake Griffin alongside, Paul has led the Clippers to 50-win seasons every year. When Kobe Bryant had Shaquille O’Neal or Pau Gasol, the Lakers were great. With no Shaq or Gasol, the Lakers were mediocre. Does that mean Kobe wasn’t a superstar?
You could make the argument that the only superstars by Cuban’s standard are LeBron, Dirk and Tim Duncan.
What we don’t know is whether Cuban started with the question or the answer. If you arrive at the answer first, that Westbrook isn’t a superstar, then you invent a question to support the answer. It was not a good question.
If you ask the question first, the entire process is more legitimate.
Here’s the truth about the statement that turned into a Cuban sandwich: Cuban’s theory had nothing to do with Russell Westbrook. It had everything to do with Dirk Nowitzki.