ESPN's John Hollinger (really smart guy) thinks Russell Westbrook will be this year's best rookie guard

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks Russell is going to be a special, special player. I don't feel so crazy anymore. Hollinger says:

"Since everyone sees this rookie of the year race as a two-man chase between Derrick Rose and O.J. Mayo, let me steal a page from Rob Neyer and present this comparison:

Player A: 37.3 min., 16.3 pts., 6.2 ast., 45.9 FG%, 13.58 PER
Player B: 36.4 min., 17.7 pts., 3.8 ast., 43.8 FG%, 14.03 PER
Player C: 33.1 min., 15.5 pts., 5.1 ast., 46.2 FG%, 16.23 PER

Player A is Rose in the month of December. Player B is Mayo in the month of December. And Player C, who has more combined points and assists per minute than either Rose or Mayo, a better shooting percentage and a higher Player Efficiency Rating? That would be Oklahoma City's Russell Westbrook in the month of December.

He's getting zero attention because he had a dreadful November and his team has won only five games. But Westbrook has been spectacular over the past month -- he shot 34.5 percent in November but 46.2 percent in December and hung 22 points, nine assists and six rebounds on the Knicks on Tuesday. Meanwhile, Rose and Mayo have cooled off from their hot starts. Westbrook also is the youngest of the three, the best defender and the only one who had to change positions upon arriving in the NBA. All of which suggests he's only scratching the surface of his potential -- as does the fact that he has a higher turnover ratio than the other two, which, in a paradoxical twist of logic, is actually a good thing for a rookie. Historically, those with high turnover rates have had much higher rates of improvement in subsequent seasons.

So 12 months from now, don't be surprised if we're calling Westbrook the top guard from this rookie class."

And also, if that last line becomes true, don't be surprised if I send David Berri a gloating email.

Note: If you're an ESPN Insider, you could continue reading as Hollinger also predicts OKC will win 20 (TWENTY!) games this year. I've got them penciled down for about 14-17 at this moment, but who am I to disagree with John "The Brain" Hollinger? I just hope he didn't watch last night's game.

Also... in today's B.S. Report, Bill talks with Ric Bucher and Marc Stein and at about the 47 minute mark, they get into Oklahoma City and potential trades. Also, Bill asks if Portland had to do it all over again, would the Blazers take Kevin Durant? Bill even makes the bold claim that if Durant hits his ceiling, he will be one of the top 20 players ever. Interesting stuff.

John Hollinger says OKC won't be the worst ever - but may get close

Is this good news? Like, is this supposed to be encouraging? (Hollinger's column and Worst Team Watch, a delightful little thing ESPN has to track where OKC ranks worst all-time.)

At this point, I guess we take what we can get.

The league's worst ever record is held by the 1972-73 Philadelphia 76ers, a club that went 9-73. Hollinger writes that OKC is actually one ahead (or behind, however you want to look at it) of the Sixers pace. In one of the 5,000 season simulations they ran, the Thunder finished with just one more win - 3-79.

But here's the key statement: "But all these scenarios depend on whether the Thunder continue to play as badly during the next 63 games as they've played in the first 19," Hollinger writes. "And for a variety of reasons, I don't expect that to happen."

Phew.

One thing I'm happy Hollinger pointed out was the clear improvement under Scott Brooks. While OKC has won exactly the same amount of games under Brooks as P.J. Carlesimo, the team is visibly different. Other than that, Hollinger ticked off a few reasons:

- "Oklahoma City's best players are young. This is important, as they can be expected to improve throughout the course of the season. Although there's the so-called rookie wall, most rookies (and second-year players) play better statistically as the season goes on."

- "The Thunder's veterans have pretty seriously underperformed their career norms, to the point that one has to think they'll bounce back sharply in the next 63 games. Most of these guys aren't old, either -- they're mid-20s types such as Chris Wilcox, Nick Collison, Damien Wilkins and Earl Watson ... It's possible that all four players suddenly became awful, but it's far more likely that it's just a 20-game fluke and their numbers will return to something more normal. Because those four are likely to see their numbers rebound, and the three youngsters also are likely to put up better numbers as the season goes on, that gives us seven key rotation players who are likely to play a lot better than they've done so far."

So that's good, right? Durant, Green and Westbrook are just going to get better (which they clearly have - just look at Jeff Green's numbers over the last five), the veterans are sure to stop sucking as much as they have and the team *should* win more than nine games. Yay! Thunder basketball! But as deflating as it may seem that our goal is the not be the worst team ever, OKC can play better. And I think it will.

One thing I couldn't help but wonder is why is only Oklahoma City being tossed about in this regard? Why not the 3-13 Wizards? Why not the 3-15 Clippers? Heck, how about the 4-14 Grizzlies who OKC beat last week?

A three part answer: 1) Because of the eye test. Oklahoma City has just looked worse than those other teams. For some reason, whatever it is, it seems like the Thunder have lost with a little bit different, flavor, if you will, than the those other squads. 2) Because of the average losing margin of the four teams; OKC: 11.1, Washington: 4.8, LAC: 8.1 and Memphis: 6.9. And 3) because of the rosters. The Thunder doesn't really have any eye-catching guys that people around the league know are staples. No Baron Davis or Marcus Camby. No Caron Butler, Gilbert Arenas (though injured) or Antwan Jamison. The assumption is those teams can't be as bad as their record shows because they're supposed to be better.

The hope is the team continues to improve under Coach Scotty and that OKC wins a game here or there until February and March when other out-of-contention teams and players start mailing it in. Seven more wins isn't that far off. If the Thunder had blown it and lost in Memphis last week and was sitting at 1-18, I might be a little more worried. But remember, the 2003-04 Magic started 1-19.

And while they clearly still count as losses, the Phoenix game (where OKC led by double-digits and lost by one) and the second Minnesota game (where OKC led by double-digits and lost on a last second shot) were within a hair of being wins. Not to mention the Atlanta game where the Thunder led most the night and last night's game against Charlotte. With a few breaks and a little better play, OKC could be at 6-13. Which is... better. I think. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, though. Decent teams win those. And the Thunder just aren't even decent.

Hollinger wraps up by saying, "Historic awfulness always requires a confluence of factors -- a perfect storm of horrendous play. In this case, it probably would take multiple injuries, as well as trades of several veterans, for the Thunder to truly threaten the Sixers' mark. So far we've seen just about the worst-case scenario for the Thunder. Unless it continues, they'll be able to escape the notoriety of becoming known as the NBA's worst team ever." Thanks John. I guess.