Beasley vs Durant

Moderators: PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0, trex_8063

who will have more impact

Kevin "the phenom" Durant
46
54%
Easy Breezy Michael beasley
39
46%
 
Total votes: 85

tsherkin
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 78,762
And1: 20,188
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

 

Post#81 » by tsherkin » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:51 pm

wiff wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Since when is the difference between 1 assist ridiculous and a MASSIVE overestimation?


Because there is a DRAMATIC difference between the capacity to average 3-4 apg and the capacity to average 5 apg? It's not simple linear numerical progression; 5 apg is something that only about 25 people in the entire league manage each year and most of them are astonishing passers put into position to make those passes. Even Dirk, who's being asked to exploit his passing so much more, is going to struggle to ever have a 5 apg season.

You've got to realize that your own ambitions for him will make it even more difficult for him to post 5+ apg, because high FGA don't go well with high APG in most cases. Have a look at the FGA/g next to the APG for the guys averaging 5 apg and you'll again notice how few of them take a really high number of shots per game.

Durant's not a point forward; the guys who are, who have been in the past, they've been recognized for that ability before they reached the NBA.

Durant was actually criticized for his passing ability before he hit Texas and he was complimented on his improvement while there, though he wasn't much used in a playmaking role. You're talking about a guy going through his developmental period without being relied upon to create a lot for others, a guy who noticeably faded when his point guard was attacked defensively. He's obviously improved his ball-handling and passing and looks better but he's not natively skilled in the same vein as a T-Mac or a Kobe or a Penny Hardaway or a Grant Hill or a Scottie Pippen, Paul Pressey, etc.

5 apg is a rather significant barrier because of what it means in terms of volume of plays devoted to playmaking rather than scoring, time spent looking specifically to create for others first, which is very difficult to do when you're the primary scorer.

Kobe has an advantage in that he plays in the triangle with shooters and he's only posted 6+ twice in his career, both times when he's shot considerably less than usual... and he is INFINITELY superior to what Durant will ever manage at drawing fouls on account of his greater strength and superior athleticism. Durant will improve in this respect as he ages of course, but he'll never match Kobe or Lebron or those guys who slash and draw 10 FTA/g.

T-Mac managed it once last season, posting a career-high 6.5 apg. Obviously, 6+ isn't 5, but you'd mentioned 6+ before and we're talking capacity as point forwards. These are the best of the best in the league and they've only reached that pinnacle once or twice in their careers. Routinely at or above 5, but these are much more athletic and mobile players who've been known since HS for their ability to create for others.

That's the separation, the historical development path that Durant lacks.

Try not to get saddle sore on that high horse you riding there GLOBAL MOD.


I'm not riding any high horse; you've insulted me directly and expected no response? If I was a ballboy and no mod at all, I'd have reported that post and called you out on it, it's exceedingly rude and inappropriate.
_BBIB_
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,622
And1: 15
Joined: May 23, 2007

 

Post#82 » by _BBIB_ » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:43 pm

Cammo101 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
With elite level prospects you know they are all good, so you have to go by upside. Players like Beasley are a dime a dozen. He is a great player no doubt, but there are a lot of players like him. Durant though is a much rarer breed. Durant is a cold blooded scorer who can play SG at 6'10''. That IMO is far more valuable than having another slightly underzied PF with inside outside skills.

Lets also keep in mind Beasley is doing all this on a bad team where he can take over. Durant did what he did on a good team that had a very good season and other good players. Lots of guys cqan put up stats on bad teams.


ANd you "know" they are good because the media told you they were.

There was no big time hype around Durant until he surprised people with his Freshman season.

LOL at calling Beasley a dime a dozen player. I'd sure like to know a dozen guys who match up favorable to him as Freshmen.

And to use the team excuse is beyond weak because Durant was a chuck for his team the one year at Texas.

Beasley is a more efficient scorer on less shots


He's a better rebounder, better inside scorer, better defender, and has a body type more suited for the NBA
Jonathan Watters
Banned User
Posts: 1,159
And1: 3
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

 

Post#83 » by Jonathan Watters » Fri Feb 1, 2008 2:02 am

TSherkin, I think you are undervaluing Durant's ability not just to shoot, but to get his shot off. With proper team structure, you can't contest his shot. It doesn't matter if he's 5 feet from the basket or 30, the ball is going up the same way. This is something that Beasley will never do. Durant is 100% unique in the NBA right now when it comes to his potential as an instant offense shot creator.

A 6'9 Ray Allen isn't a bad comparison, but again you miss just how dominant a 6'9 Ray Allen would be.

Also consider that Durant played the 4 and 5 last year for Texas. Now he is playing a pure 2. That is a huge, huge leap. There is a massive difference between trying to slash on a 2-guard and trying to slash on a center, and there's hardly a 6'10 guy in the league you could put out on the perimeter like Seattle is doing with Durant and NOT have that player come off looking a little out of place.

I'm not sure why Seattle is taking this approach with him, but he obviously could be much, much more productive if he wasn't being played where and how he is being played. He doesn't rebound because he's being told to break the other direction the second the ball goes up. He's a much better rebounder than what he is displaying.

It also must be noted that while Durant has been inconsistent, he's also had plenty of spectacular moments. This isn't a matter of ability, it is a matter of consistency. If he was playing a different role a little closer to the basket, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because he'd be averaging 6-7 rpg and shooting 45% from the floor. He just doesn't find himself in a situation to get very many easy looks, and when that changes his efficiency will rise to something very normal for a younger first option type.
conleyorbust
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,837
And1: 0
Joined: May 24, 2007

 

Post#84 » by conleyorbust » Fri Feb 1, 2008 2:43 am

Jonathan, I have said that if he can put on the weight to handle himself against NBA 4s, he could definitely be a pretty scary player. Right now though he would get physically destroyed by almost any NBA 4, not just the burly ones like Boozer and Brand either... guys like Josh Smith and Antawn Jamison would just murder him in the post.

A 6'10 Ray Allen is a little off, Ray Ray is a much better shooter from downtown and has been since he came into the league. Allen shot 39% from 3 in his first season. Ray Ray also has great handles which allows him to shoot from wherever he wants. KD didn't come equipped with the great handles. Not to say he can't drastically improve in this area, if he did he could start playing with Dirk who, at the moment, is the guy who can get his shot off almost 100% of the time.
tsherkin
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 78,762
And1: 20,188
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

 

Post#85 » by tsherkin » Fri Feb 1, 2008 7:03 am

Jonathan Watters wrote:TSherkin, I think you are undervaluing Durant's ability not just to shoot, but to get his shot off. With proper team structure, you can't contest his shot. It doesn't matter if he's 5 feet from the basket or 30, the ball is going up the same way. This is something that Beasley will never do. Durant is 100% unique in the NBA right now when it comes to his potential as an instant offense shot creator.


No, no I don't believe so. My beef isn't with his ability to get off a high volume of shots, it's his ability to do so with great efficiency. Because he doesn't draw a lot of free throws and never will, he'd have to be a 40% three-point shooter to really make up for the difference in efficiency (in eFG% and points per shot, if you want to measure it like that).

A 6'9 Ray Allen isn't a bad comparison, but again you miss just how dominant a 6'9 Ray Allen would be.


About the same as Ray Allen at 6'5, IMO, only a better rebounder and with a higher defensive potential, theoretically. Offensively, I don't much see the difference. I mean I understand the value of height, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it'll have that much effect. I mean, Ray Allen gets a great many of his shots off of screens, which means his height is patently irrelevant, since there's no defender to speak of in front of him. Obviously, it'll help for getting his shot off over smaller defenders when necessary but Ray-Ray's been a 44.5% FG guy on his career and that's including the last seven years when his FG% has been depressed by a RIDICULOUS volume of 3PAs per game (6.6+ in each and only two under 7). I don't think Durant's going to be shooting a notably higher percentage even once he starts consistently shooting a lot better.

Also consider that Durant played the 4 and 5 last year for Texas. Now he is playing a pure 2. That is a huge, huge leap. There is a massive difference between trying to slash on a 2-guard and trying to slash on a center, and there's hardly a 6'10 guy in the league you could put out on the perimeter like Seattle is doing with Durant and NOT have that player come off looking a little out of place.


Agreed.

I think it's flipping (Please Use More Appropriate Word), playing him at the 2. I think it's the dumbest thing Seattle could have done, all told.

I'm not sure why Seattle is taking this approach with him, but he obviously could be much, much more productive if he wasn't being played where and how he is being played. He doesn't rebound because he's being told to break the other direction the second the ball goes up. He's a much better rebounder than what he is displaying.


I'm sure if he wasn't a perimeter player, then he'd rebound more effectively, yes. Much the same was true of Carmelo while he was being told to lead the break so often as the jumper/cherry-picker. He's doing 7 rpg this year, so that's effectively shutting people up.

I think 5 or 6 rpg is a legitimate expectation from Durant if he continues to be a wing. If/when he starts logging a lot of time at the 4, we'll talk again, he'll probably rebound better.

It also must be noted that while Durant has been inconsistent, he's also had plenty of spectacular moments. This isn't a matter of ability, it is a matter of consistency. If he was playing a different role a little closer to the basket, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because he'd be averaging 6-7 rpg and shooting 45% from the floor.


Sure, and that's why I'm not bandying about individual percentages and what-not. Again, as I've said, I'm reasonably comfortable with the idea of Durant being a 22-24 ppg scorer on good percentages, especially if/when he discovers the three.

But at that level, he's still a volume-of-attempts scorer, not an elite scorer. He's never going to be a hyper-efficient scorer because he's not going to be a 50%+ guy or a big FTA/g guy. Those are elite scorers. Durant is going to be like Ray Allen, I'd guess, which is not elite. Very skilled and useful but not elite.
_BBIB_
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,622
And1: 15
Joined: May 23, 2007

 

Post#86 » by _BBIB_ » Fri Feb 1, 2008 11:27 pm

Durant definitely has a high ceiling.

Let's face it, I was way off when I said he was the Black Adam Morrison. (Anybody remember that thread)

But the question is how likely is he to live up to it? He has to gain weight/strength to live up to his potential. Not necessarily mass but he has to at least get wiry strong like a Bosh/Garnett.

He also has to be a more efficient scorer. He can't score 20 PPG taking that many shots. That's not a recipe for winning at all.


I would say he's the next Rashard Lewis but the kid is so freaking young.


If he really works hard on his game he could live up to the Dirk/McGrady combo comparison
User avatar
BruceO
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,922
And1: 311
Joined: Jul 17, 2007
Location: feeling monumental
   

 

Post#87 » by BruceO » Sat Feb 2, 2008 7:22 am

Would any of you play Beasley at the SF position? because I would, Especially with all the big SF's running around who can rebound with Lebron being the most succesful out of them. Who do you think could win that matchup if both of them played the SF spot. I feel overall if they played against each other next year Beasley would win the matchup if they played the SF, or PF spot against each other, hes also a better rebounder and will be able to post Durant up. I do think Durant might be quick enough to go past Beasley, or he'll float out in the perimeter and hit alot of shots from out there. I don't know how good a perimeter defender Beasley projects to be
tsherkin
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 78,762
And1: 20,188
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

 

Post#88 » by tsherkin » Sat Feb 2, 2008 11:54 am

_BBIB_ wrote:But the question is how likely is he to live up to it? He has to gain weight/strength to live up to his potential. Not necessarily mass but he has to at least get wiry strong like a Bosh/Garnett.


Agreed, though as it did with both, I suspect it'll take him 3-5 years.

He also has to be a more efficient scorer. He can't score 20 PPG taking that many shots. That's not a recipe for winning at all.


His present level of efficiency is understandable; as has been the refrain from myself and others in this thread, he's 19, he's physically underdeveloped, he's a rookie and he's playing on one of the three worst teams in the league, almost without ANY semblance of help. So his efficiency this year is excusable, especially as he adjusts to the NBA 3-point line. Next year will be more telling, and the year after that but his rookie season? Not so much.
User avatar
yearsago
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,831
And1: 2
Joined: Jul 13, 2002
Location: Puyallup, Wa
Contact:
         

 

Post#89 » by yearsago » Fri Feb 8, 2008 7:01 am

No, no I don't believe so. My beef isn't with his ability to get off a high volume of shots, it's his ability to do so with great efficiency. Because he doesn't draw a lot of free throws and never will,


You can already project out his career to know he will *never* draw free throws?
User avatar
BruceO
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,922
And1: 311
Joined: Jul 17, 2007
Location: feeling monumental
   

 

Post#90 » by BruceO » Fri Feb 8, 2008 7:22 am

yearsago wrote:
No, no I don't believe so. My beef isn't with his ability to get off a high volume of shots, it's his ability to do so with great efficiency. Because he doesn't draw a lot of free throws and never will,


You can already project out his career to know he will *never* draw free throws?


I think he might Durant won't draw alot of freethrows (like a wade or arenas)
tsherkin
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 78,762
And1: 20,188
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

 

Post#91 » by tsherkin » Fri Feb 8, 2008 7:36 am

yearsago wrote:
No, no I don't believe so. My beef isn't with his ability to get off a high volume of shots, it's his ability to do so with great efficiency. Because he doesn't draw a lot of free throws and never will,


You can already project out his career to know he will *never* draw free throws?


High FTA/g players are either really strong or really athletic; Durant is neither and isn't going to magically develop considerably more explosion in his first step, nor will he ever be big enough to power up for huge volumes of FTAs.

Moreover, his main weapon offensively is a jumpshot...

It's pretty clear.
BBen
Starter
Posts: 2,104
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 18, 2007

 

Post#92 » by BBen » Fri Feb 8, 2008 2:00 pm

I can't comment on Beasley because I haven't been able to watch him play since I'm living in Argentina and it's much easier to watch NBA games. What I can say is that Durant has games where he gets to the line 15 times and shoots 2 for 17 from the field but gets 21 points. He really just knows how to put points on the board when he wants to. I seriously think he has the potential to do whatever he wants.

I also disagree with the non-athletic thing. What makes a person athletic? vertical leap? He doesn't show that much. Quick first step? Kevin Durant has an ankle-breaking first step when he does his rip-through from outside. For his skill set I don't think he needs a huge vertical (something more important for an inside player). As far as muscle, he doesn't have that, but does that make him non-athletic? When he puts on muscle will he "become" athletic? He's got great hands and runs the floor well, what more do you want?

Also by watching the Sonics play you realize one thing in particular: the PGs DO NOT create shots effectively or consistently. This means that when Durant goes 5-15 it was because he had 3 shots created for him and 17 that he had to force up because he had no help.

As far as Beasley goes, he kinda sounds like David West to me. Also, remember that in college Durant had unarguably the best freshman season EVER and won awards no freshman has ever won.
User avatar
horaceworthy
Head Coach
Posts: 6,650
And1: 250
Joined: Jan 17, 2006
Location: Ruining Fuddrucker's for everyone

 

Post#93 » by horaceworthy » Fri Feb 8, 2008 5:07 pm

BBen wrote:As far as Beasley goes, he kinda sounds like David West to me. Also, remember that in college Durant had unarguably the best freshman season EVER and won awards no freshman has ever won.


At the time, but in many ways, what Beasley has done this year surpasses what Durant did last year.
"A while back,'' Cardinal said, "I took a picture of the standings and texted it to Love, just to bust his chops,'' Cardinal said. "He sent me a picture back of a snowdrift.''
BBen
Starter
Posts: 2,104
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 18, 2007

 

Post#94 » by BBen » Fri Feb 8, 2008 6:35 pm

For example?
tsherkin
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 78,762
And1: 20,188
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

 

Post#95 » by tsherkin » Fri Feb 8, 2008 8:42 pm

BBen wrote:I can't comment on Beasley because I haven't been able to watch him play since I'm living in Argentina and it's much easier to watch NBA games. What I can say is that Durant has games where he gets to the line 15 times and shoots 2 for 17 from the field but gets 21 points. He really just knows how to put points on the board when he wants to. I seriously think he has the potential to do whatever he wants.


Everyone who tries to score eventually has games where his FTA are boosted up.

I also disagree with the non-athletic thing. What makes a person athletic? vertical leap?


No, certainly not when you're as long as Durant, no. And he's not unathletic in vertical leap. Part of it is first step, which isn't as good as you're making it out to be; he looks quicker than he is on account of leg length.

As far as muscle, he doesn't have that, but does that make him non-athletic?


Yes/no, that's why I mentioned it separately. See below.

Also by watching the Sonics play you realize one thing in particular: the PGs DO NOT create shots effectively or consistently. This means that when Durant goes 5-15 it was because he had 3 shots created for him and 17 that he had to force up because he had no help.


Yeah, but that's irrelevant; pertinent to his FG%, certainly, but not especially relevant to FTA, since those are more often than not created out of iso sets. I'll grant you that a few more transition opportunities might bump his average up but in reality, those are more truths about his efficiency and I've already recognized the various factors suppressing his efficiency and admitted that as they change, so to is his efficiency likely to rise.

But we're talking about DrawF here; there are indeed three factors: style of offense, quickness and strength. And technically yes, strength is part of athleticism. Strength affects balance and the ability to absorb impact, which affects what kind of motions and maneuvers of which a player is capable and it's a physical trait pertaining to musculature... you improve vertical leap by strengthening the fast twitch muscles in your calves and by strengthening your quads and what-not, so you're concurrently improving your lower body strength.

Athleticism is traditionally taken to mean quickness and leaping ability but strength is most certainly a form of athleticism.

Anyway, look at a guy like Shaq or Dwight Howard; as power players, they are considerably stronger and heavier than everyone else in the post and they draw their fouls by powering through and over people with a combination of mass, strength and (in young Shaq and present Dwight's case) explosive vertical leap and quickness. Durant will never be a power post player, period. It will not happen.

As to quickness, he's not got the same kind of first step as Bosh. He's pretty bad at drawing fouls now and while he figures to improve quite a bit as he gains more experience, better teammates, better musculature, etc, I don't see him making it into the elite territory. This is, after all, what we're talking about.

I can see 7/8 FTA/g. That's certainly not out of the question when he improves if he's taking like 18-20 FGA/g. He's averaging almost 6 FTA/g on about 19 FGA/g right now, so it's certainly possible.

But when you're talking elite FT drawers, you're talking 10+ FTA/g like a Kobe (not this year) or an AI or Wade or Dwight or Lebron. Heck, even guys like Richard Jefferson and Corey Maggette, both of whom are strong and aggressively attack the paint.

Again, three factors: Durant's not going to be a dominantly strong individual, that's clear. He will improve but not sufficiently. I don't feel he's as quick as you're suggesting but he is still pretty quick. My point? Not dominant quickness.

And unless there's a radical and dramatic change in the way he's been playing since high school, he's primarily a jump shooter who ALSO posts and drives, so I don't think the distribution of shots he's taking far from the rim is going to alter enough to make him a really prolific DrawF kind of player.

As far as Beasley goes, he kinda sounds like David West to me. Also, remember that in college Durant had unarguably the best freshman season EVER and won awards no freshman has ever won.


Yeah but Beasley's doing much the same thing; he's broken some of Durant's records (for example the Big-12 conference record for rebounds, with 24) and is setting team and division records. He's an aggressive scorer and he's not primarily a shooter the way West is. He's also more athletic than West.

He's leading the league in rebounding, top 3 or 4 in scoring, he's four double-doubles away from Carmelo Anthony's freshman record of 22 with 9 games left (and in the previous 21 games has only failed to get a double-double twice).

Beasley is having a dominant season; he's scoring only 0.5 ppg less than Durant, grabbing 1.2 more rebounds per game, shooting almost 10% better from the floor, shooting almost 2% better from downtown, I mean there's not a lot that Durant did that Beasley hasn't done or isn't doing.
TheUrbanZealot
Junior
Posts: 478
And1: 4
Joined: Jun 30, 2007

 

Post#96 » by TheUrbanZealot » Fri Feb 8, 2008 9:22 pm

I've scanned through this post and seen some very dubious comparisons, e.g.: Durant to Ray Allen/Tmac/Dirk/Lewis, Beasley to David West, etc...

We've kind of lost focus the post topic , which is Beasley vs. Durant.

First off, you can't compare Beasley's college freshman season with Durant's NBA rookie season. They are playing completely different levels of competition which is either glorifying or masking their ultimate output.

Inevitably we have to go back to who would you rather have, and in asking that, you have to take EVERYTHING into account, even elements which aren't necessary basketball related. Here is a quick alpha/delta breakdown of Durant/Beasley:

Durant Alphas:
- Good ball handler @ 6 10
- Great shooting mechanics
- Long wingspan
- Can play 3 positions
- Clutch shooter, and wants the ball in the clutch
- Great free throw shooter
- Ridiculous work ethic, a total gym rat
- Gained invaluable experience playing Team USA
- Underrated defender
- Excellent attitude, on and off the court

Durant Deltas:
- Commits very silly turnovers
- Tough adjustment from post to perimeter
- Lack of strength doesn't allow him to post up shorter 2's
- No real go-to move
- Takes bad shots to makeup for an earlier mistake/bad shot
- Volume shooter
- While underrated defensively, can't stay with quicker, smaller 2's
- Not really a vocal leader


Beasley Alphas:
- Good ball handler for 6 9 PF
- Very efficient shooter (over 50% FG, over 40% 3's)
- Has an array of post moves
- Great 1st step for PF
- Very athletic
- Has an edge- talks smack but backs it up
- Great shooting mechanics
- Good shot blocker
- Very strong at college level

Beasley Deltas:
- Tweener @ NBA level
- Has had attitude problems in past
- Ok defender but often effort isn't there


Now, purposely, I put more alphas and deltas for Durant, and less alphas and deltas for Beasley, because that's exactly how I see them when comparing the 2:

In a nutshell, Durant has slightly more "all-around" alphas to his game, while also having a lot more areas he needs work. Beasley, while having alightly less alphas, also has less he needs to work on.

What does that tell you? Beasley is closer to the representation of what he will be than Durant is right now. Beasley's skillset right now is more polised than Durants. However, Durant has much more room to improve his skillset than Beasley. Which makes sense too- because Durant is going from playing center in college to 2 guard! That is a huge, huge factor which can't be overstated. Durant is having to learn a position on the fly, where as Beasley in all likelihood will just transition to the same position he is playing now in college.

In college, if I had to choose one of the 2 players to play in an NCAA championship game, I would choose Beasley, hands down. On the college level, even though Durant put up big numbers, he was a volume scorer whose efficiency and reliability doesn't compare to Beasley's. However! In the NBA, Durant goes from being a risky prospect to a dynamic prospect because there are very very few people who are 6 10 and combine the athleticism, ball-handling, shooting potential, good attitude, great work ethic, clutch player, intengibles, etc that Durant possesses. Durant is nowhere near Rashard Lewis. Lewis a 6 10 3pt shootnig machine with no handles and no aggression. Durant, in his 1st year, is matching what Lewis is doing in his 10th year, with more ability at that. Durant isn't Dirk Nowiitski. Nowitski is a slow, methodical 7ft shooting machine who isn't going to guard 2's. Durant is not the post player or shooter yet that Nowitski is, but he is far more "skilled" in virtually ever other facet of the game. Beasley is not David West. Beasley is a bigger, better perimeter player than David West. Beasley is a unique entity in his own right, but he also has the potential to get "lost in the shuffle" much more than a 6 10 shooting guard that is still growing does...

If I'm Seattle, I would love to have a 2-4 triumverate of Durant-Green-Beasley. However, if I were presented with the opportunity to trade Durant for Beasley, I'd have to respectfully decline. You simply can't overestimate certain intangibles- like a history of being at the gym early and leaving late. Like working with Team USA. Like letting kids come to your house and play video games. Like being humble and grounded yet having a killer instinct on the court. Like being unselfish. Like not settling for being anything but the best player in the league. Durant has such intangibles and presents it in his work ethic and demeanor that has been well documented. Beasley on the other hand, hasn't had the best press when it comes to intangibles. Granted, it's been documented that he works very had in practice, but he also has had attitude issues and it comes across in his cockiness (although he can often back it up).
I just see Beasley as someone I don't want to gamble on. There are too many question marks all around. College, I'd take Beasley hands down. NBA? I'd take Durant in a heartbeat, and wouldn't think twice about it...
conleyorbust
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,837
And1: 0
Joined: May 24, 2007

 

Post#97 » by conleyorbust » Fri Feb 8, 2008 9:41 pm

You are simplifying Dirk quite a bit. One of the reasons he has such a low rate of TOs is because he is an amazing ballhandler, thats also one of the reasons Durant has such a high rate of TOs even though he doesn't get to the line as often, his ballhandling is a little choppy still.

Now Durant is young and, as you mentioned, a gym rat. He can definitely improve but he probably won't (shouldn't) be a 2 guard long term.
tsherkin
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 78,762
And1: 20,188
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

 

Post#98 » by tsherkin » Fri Feb 8, 2008 10:13 pm

I think it's ridiculous to have him as a 2-guard... he'd be much better off as a 3, even if he's giving up strength and some of his height advantage. It'll help him defensively on most nights and it'll actually be easier to post up the SFs because he won't have the same leverage issues when he tries to post a shorter, stronger guy. Moreover, it'll put him closer to the basket more often, which will help his rebounding. I don't know what the Sonics are thinking, really, beyond "Hurr, he's tall!"
TheUrbanZealot
Junior
Posts: 478
And1: 4
Joined: Jun 30, 2007

 

Post#99 » by TheUrbanZealot » Fri Feb 8, 2008 10:38 pm

tsherkin wrote:I think it's ridiculous to have him as a 2-guard... he'd be much better off as a 3, even if he's giving up strength and some of his height advantage. It'll help him defensively on most nights and it'll actually be easier to post up the SFs because he won't have the same leverage issues when he tries to post a shorter, stronger guy. Moreover, it'll put him closer to the basket more often, which will help his rebounding. I don't know what the Sonics are thinking, really, beyond "Hurr, he's tall!"



That sounds like filler justification. Come on now, we can use the "what if" rule on many players. Using your sarcastic stab of "hurr, he's tall", let's take Dirk Nowitski as an example. If Dirk Nowitski were a typical 6 9, 6 10, would he be the same player? Absolutely not. Having 2, 3, 4 inch advantages on his comp helps him tremendously. Saying "hurr he's tall" may be understandable if someone didn't possess the skillset to compliment that height that creates a unique advantage (a la, Dirk's case) vs. his competition. Height is very relevant when dealing with someone like Durant who, if he were a prototypical 6 5, 6 6, probably wouldn't be nearly as intruiging a prospect.

I'm presuming your dig is at the notion that Durant is going to be "more effective" @ the 2 guard because he is tall? You certainly can't be making a dig at Sonics picking him #2 (as that was a no brainer), so I can only presume you are referring to the former. I agree in some regards that Durant is being mis-utilized. He certainly has the capability of posting up, and while he is slender, the Sonics have to give him the opportunity to learn how to use his body in the post in real-game scenarios. Further, Seattle doesn't really take advantage of Chris Wilcox enough in the post to warrant him being doubled and thus creating more open looks for Durant. Right now, Seattle is basically a makeshift offense, with no real identity. They are starting to use some pick and rolls with Durant and Kurt Thomas, but by no means have they established themselves as a team with an offensive identity (a la Phoenix, Golden St, Dallas, Lakers triangle, etc). I place a lot of the blame on their coach, but also their lack of a legitimate PG.

Finally, I think all of this "he should be" playing a certain position needs to be thrown right out the door. The reality is there is little variance between the 2 and 3, save for height, and minor ball-handling. No coach is going to be dumb enough to force a player to play outside his comfort zone/capability. Hell, look at what the Suns did not too long ago with Boris Diaw, at 6 8, playing center! (and happened to have his most effective year, mind you). If Durant wasn't capable of playing the 2, he wouldn't be there. Besides, on the defensive end, if Seattle's 3 (a la Jeff Green) is better able to handle the other teams 2, then they can always switch defensive assignments. So the whole he should be a 2/3 etc is really just an overblown formality. The reality is Durant just needs to be utilized better, develop his alphas, and allay his deltas. Once he has a couple of years under his belt I have no doubt he will be one of the top 15 scorers in the league....
TheUrbanZealot
Junior
Posts: 478
And1: 4
Joined: Jun 30, 2007

 

Post#100 » by TheUrbanZealot » Fri Feb 8, 2008 10:42 pm

conleyorbust wrote:You are simplifying Dirk quite a bit. One of the reasons he has such a low rate of TOs is because he is an amazing ballhandler, thats also one of the reasons Durant has such a high rate of TOs even though he doesn't get to the line as often, his ballhandling is a little choppy still.

Now Durant is young and, as you mentioned, a gym rat. He can definitely improve but he probably won't (shouldn't) be a 2 guard long term.



I wouldn't label Dirk an "amazing ball handler". Though, that is subjective. For a 7 ft PF, ok, his ball-handling is definitely above norm. Dirk doesn't really have the type of game though that warrants him having lots of TO's. He is more of an elbow-post player. He doesn't make silly passes. He doesn't really go one on one while crossing people over and exposing the ball that much. He basically just backs his man down and shoots over him. There is nothing wrong w/ that. If anything, I think the fact that Dirk's game is relatively simple is a positive. He isn't a highlight reel turnover machine...

Return to Player Comparisons