Kevin Durant "strikes back" at Critics

[TheOGJabroni]

If you can call it "striking back", he basically politely disagreed with critics.

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/62074/20091012/durant_shoots_back_at_critics/

He has a point though, it doesn't matter what the +/- statistics say. Durant is a terrific ballplayer. If someone is going to look at those stats and decide Durant isn't going to be a superstar and that OKC would even be better off without him, they are, simply put, idiots.

[Clangus]

Yeah I am sick of hearing how the team is worse with him. +/- stats don't take into account who the opposition is throwing on the court when KD is out for one.

When a guy is scoring so efficiently, I can't believe its detrimental to the team.

[dre_1614]

Truehoop strikes back at KD http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-4 ... aller.html

[TheOGJabroni]

I really hope these clowns don't get into his head. KD should pay no attention to them. Of course the team's +/- stats are better when KD is out, because those 8-10 mpg, are what we call "GARBAGE MINUTES". Minutes where the scrubs from OKC are trying to fight for PT against other scrubs on the other team. It's basically a free for all. KD doesn't get the luxary of dominating inferior opponents, because no offense to OKC, but it's rare they face a much worse opponent at this stage of the team's development. When talent is added to OKC (which it is) and they mature and grow together (which they are), you will see astounding results. It will be clear to these idiot writers, Kevin Durant is a player that helps his team, not hurts.

[slick_watts]

Even when adjusted, +/- is a noisy statistic. KD's adjusted +/- is quite bad for someone who's touted as a great player, and probably speaks to his inability on the defensive end (plus the team's overall shortcomings with defense). But it's probably a bit exagerrated both by the early season blowout minutes and nuances of OKC's rotation.

I think that retort TrueHoop article is pretty solid. KD definitely has trouble defending the pick and roll and it's an issue. I don't buy the offensive stuff though, because KD was one of the most efficient wing scorers in the league. He does need to cut down on the TO's.

[wiff]

+/- is horribly flawed.

How anyone can try to use +/- to tell how good a player is, is a joke. And honestly KD proves it's flawed. Are you seriously trying to tell me Matt Bonner is better than Durant? Really?

That is how flawed +/- is. If you were to draft players based on +/- Matt Bonner would be drafted over Durant and about 80% over the rest of the league too.

So am I really supposed to take these articles based on +/- seriously? Because to me these two article are written by stat geeks that apparently don't use the much more reliable eye ball test.

Sure in this system of measurement Durant measures out to be a horrible NBA player. Worst player on his team. And his team was at the bottom of the league.

And if that's the case, obviously this system of measurement is complete trash, much like those two articles.

And I'm not saying this because I have been a Durant fan since he was in Texas and made a post about how I would draft him over Oden even before the Sonics won the 2nd pick in the draft, but even Sacramento fan knows Durant is better than Matt Bonner, Celtic fan knows Durant is better than Matt Bonner. Hell every fan knows Durant is better than Matt Bonner.

How any use of measurement can be used in debates so frequently to rate talent and yet be so horribly wrong is beyond me.

[slick_watts]

The thing about adjusted +/- is that it's relatively new, and people are still figuring out how to evaluate the data that it generates.

The quoted suggestions in the article stating that GM's shouldn't accept Kevin Durant on their team 'for free' is very counter intuitive and unbelievable.

[wizkid27]

+/- at any level has almost nothing to do with true talent level. However, the huge minus in durant's plus/minus rating can be traced back to the team's best streak of the season (where they won like 8 out of 12 or something like that) and Durant was on the IR for all of them. For whatever reason (Durant or otherwise) the team just really came together during that time period and the plans were really coming together. Now, this statistic could just as easily point to the fact that Westbrook and Green are great players that don't do enough when Durant is there to defer to. However, when it comes down to it, the stat measures exactly what it says...

Sure, Bonner might not be a great player, but maybe he sticks with his guy on D, opens up the lane for his teammates and knocks down shots when he has them.

All I'm trying to say is, it could be a little bit of the Allen Iverson affect... Durant's teammates are spending WAY too much time watching him while he's out there and he doesn't emphasize creating for them nearly enough to cancel it out.

[Raptors Digest]

Yeah, this is just silly, of course his +/- is low, he plays on a bad team and gets the most minutes, lol.
Truehoop is a blog, and the writer was fishing for content with his +/- analysis and the writer obviously knows nothing about basketball as KD is one of the most talented and prolific scorers and all-around talents in the NBA

[mcmokken]

Still think it's funny how the article brings up some schmuck who says his team (the Mavericks) would not even take Durant for free because of the +/-. Cuban needs to fire him right now. That quote should be a career-ender in my opinion.

[Julio]

Even when adjusted, +/- is a noisy statistic. KD's adjusted +/- is quite bad for someone who's touted as a great player, and probably speaks to his inability on the defensive end (plus the team's overall shortcomings with defense). But it's probably a bit exagerrated both by the early season blowout minutes and nuances of OKC's rotation.

I think that retort TrueHoop article is pretty solid. KD definitely has trouble defending the pick and roll and it's an issue. I don't buy the offensive stuff though, because KD was one of the most efficient wing scorers in the league. He does need to cut down on the TO's.

Not oly that, but the fact that he needs maybe to take better shoots. Don't get me wrong, he can make it, and at high clip, but maybe sometimes waiting for a better opportunity would be better.
That should come with experience.

What I really want to see, besides the defensive improvement, is if and when he becomes a great playmaker, like Tmac or Carter were/are.

[wiff]

To me about the only thing +/- can measure is how good your teammates are.

Hey look at that Lamar Odom and Kobe Bryant are 2 and 3 in =/- last season right behind LeBron James, I bet these guys were on good teams last year. Well what do you know they had the best records last season.

You know what else can tell me this? The standings and I don't have to do hours of math to find out a result.

I'm curious to know what Chris Bosh's +/- was last season or D Wade +/- two years ago. What was KG's +/- his last year in Minny?

+/- is total garbage.

[slick_watts]

Raw +/- is useless, but there are lots of ways to adjust the numbers so they eliminate a lot of the background static. The problem with this right now is that there's no set way to do it, and in my opinion there's a lot of confirmation bias going on with these types of statistics. You can find lots of way to make the kind of players you like look good (or bad) when you start adjusting..

[The Scheff]

Hello all! This is my first post on these boards, and first on this site, though I have spent probably too much time reading these forums. I grew up in Seattle as a Sonics fan, and have transitioned smoothly to a Blazers fan, as I went to high school with B-Roy and happen to love PDX. However, I grew attached to Durant and Green, and still follow The Thunder closely.

What I want to say is this:

Those suggesting that Henry Abbott's position be discredited because he writes a blog, or is somehow married to statistics and not observation either (a) didn't read his two articles, or (b) didn't read his two articles. The man is highly respected in league circles and on the internet because he is an intuitive, intelligent and reasoned thinker. While I didn't necessarily agree with everyone he posted in his first article on this subject, I think his second fleshes out why Durant is still a work in progress, that pinpoints many of the concerns those around this forum have suggested for the past few years.

While Durant on the offensive end is obviously a gifted and efficient player, Abbott, in his analysis, is merely suggesting ways, specifically through the most used play in the NBA (the pick and roll), to improve his efficiency. Just because a player is ridiculously efficient doesn't mean said player can't continue to become even more so. Better use of ball screens, one of Abbott's suggestions, should not be a point which we, as fans of Durant, should shrug off lightly.

On the defensive end Abbott's analysis is even more instructive, as this has been one of the points highlighted on these boards as an area in which Durant needs the most improvement.

In the future, before discounting analyses I suggest fully understanding and coming to terms with them before posting. I've read far too many posts on this board and in others where readers will highlight one line and deride it for inaccuracies without giving heed to the context and argument within which it was presented.

The point is this: Abbott isn't trying to say Durant is worse that Bonner, or that he isn't a star in the making. But rather, that these areas he's highlighted, specifically in regards to the pick and roll (again the most common offensive play used in the NBA), are the areas in which Durant will become a better player and by extension a better teammate. +/- isn't a usefull tool on its own as Slick Watts pointed out, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used as an entry point into a much deeper analysis of a player's strengths and minuses that many of you have already engaged in anyways.

Read, people! I know that realgm.com users aren't necessarily known for their reading comprehension but there's no better time than the present to begin to!

[Clangus]

Hello all! This is my first post on these boards, and first on this site, though I have spent probably too much time reading these forums. I grew up in Seattle as a Sonics fan, and have transitioned smoothly to a Blazers fan, as I went to high school with B-Roy and happen to love PDX. However, I grew attached to Durant and Green, and still follow The Thunder closely.

What I want to say is this:

Those suggesting that Henry Abbott's position be discredited because he writes a blog, or is somehow married to statistics and not observation either (a) didn't read his two articles, or (b) didn't read his two articles. The man is highly respected in league circles and on the internet because he is an intuitive, intelligent and reasoned thinker. While I didn't necessarily agree with everyone he posted in his first article on this subject, I think his second fleshes out why Durant is still a work in progress, that pinpoints many of the concerns those around this forum have suggested for the past few years.

While Durant on the offensive end is obviously a gifted and efficient player, Abbott, in his analysis, is merely suggesting ways, specifically through the most used play in the NBA (the pick and roll), to improve his efficiency. Just because a player is ridiculously efficient doesn't mean said player can't continue to become even more so. Better use of ball screens, one of Abbott's suggestions, should not be a point which we, as fans of Durant, should shrug off lightly.

On the defensive end Abbott's analysis is even more instructive, as this has been one of the points highlighted on these boards as an area in which Durant needs the most improvement.

In the future, before discounting analyses I suggest fully understanding and coming to terms with them before posting. I've read far too many posts on this board and in others where readers will highlight one line and deride it for inaccuracies without giving heed to the context and argument within which it was presented.

The point is this: Abbott isn't trying to say Durant is worse that Bonner, or that he isn't a star in the making. But rather, that these areas he's highlighted, specifically in regards to the pick and roll (again the most common offensive play used in the NBA), are the areas in which Durant will become a better player and by extension a better teammate. +/- isn't a usefull tool on its own as Slick Watts pointed out, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used as an entry point into a much deeper analysis of a player's strengths and minuses that many of you have already engaged in anyways.

Read, people! I know that realgm.com users aren't necessarily known for their reading comprehension but there's no better time than the present to begin to!

Harry? Is that you?

Seriously, you suggest that Realgm start reading, well i suggest to you (and Harry if you're not him) that you start watching some Thunder games, I know, its something that analysts who favor statistics aren't necessarily known for, but there's no better time than the present to begin.

[wiff]

Hello all! This is my first post on these boards, and first on this site, though I have spent probably too much time reading these forums. I grew up in Seattle as a Sonics fan, and have transitioned smoothly to a Blazers fan, as I went to high school with B-Roy and happen to love PDX. However, I grew attached to Durant and Green, and still follow The Thunder closely.

What I want to say is this:

Those suggesting that Henry Abbott's position be discredited because he writes a blog, or is somehow married to statistics and not observation either (a) didn't read his two articles, or (b) didn't read his two articles. The man is highly respected in league circles and on the internet because he is an intuitive, intelligent and reasoned thinker. While I didn't necessarily agree with everyone he posted in his first article on this subject, I think his second fleshes out why Durant is still a work in progress, that pinpoints many of the concerns those around this forum have suggested for the past few years.

While Durant on the offensive end is obviously a gifted and efficient player, Abbott, in his analysis, is merely suggesting ways, specifically through the most used play in the NBA (the pick and roll), to improve his efficiency. Just because a player is ridiculously efficient doesn't mean said player can't continue to become even more so. Better use of ball screens, one of Abbott's suggestions, should not be a point which we, as fans of Durant, should shrug off lightly.

On the defensive end Abbott's analysis is even more instructive, as this has been one of the points highlighted on these boards as an area in which Durant needs the most improvement.

In the future, before discounting analyses I suggest fully understanding and coming to terms with them before posting. I've read far too many posts on this board and in others where readers will highlight one line and deride it for inaccuracies without giving heed to the context and argument within which it was presented.

The point is this: Abbott isn't trying to say Durant is worse that Bonner, or that he isn't a star in the making. But rather, that these areas he's highlighted, specifically in regards to the pick and roll (again the most common offensive play used in the NBA), are the areas in which Durant will become a better player and by extension a better teammate. +/- isn't a usefull tool on its own as Slick Watts pointed out, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used as an entry point into a much deeper analysis of a player's strengths and minuses that many of you have already engaged in anyways.

Read, people! I know that realgm.com users aren't necessarily known for their reading comprehension but there's no better time than the present to begin to!

Ever heard of the saying "don't believe everything that you read"?

Sorry dude but I'm not buying what he is selling and I don't care how respected he is in his field. He make a poor argument based on a system of measurement that is terribly flawed. Deal with it.

Durant may have a poor +/- but it doesn't make him a bad teammate. It means he gets a lot of minutes on a bad team. The Thunder would not be better without him period.

[The Scheff]

I obviously didn't make myself clear. I don't think Durant is a bad teammate or a bad player, because obviously he is already a star and soon to be a superstar. What is relevant in Abbott's analysis, however, is the ways in which Durant must improve to reach that next level. I watched the Thunder over 15 times last year (I caught as many as I could between schoolwork and the justin.tv schedule) and one thing is clear: Durant is already dominant on the offensive end (but still could improve in terms of shot selection, which will hopefully improve as his supporting cast does), but lacking on the defensive side of the ball. When I read Abbott's analysis I didn't take it for granted, but it certainly confirmed a few things I saw when watching him play: i.e. the occasional forced shot (which, again, is likely due to his lack of faith in teammates), but mostly, the lack of defensive accountability. Durant can be dominant defensively due to his length and his ever growing basketball IQ, but at this point he isn't.

Listen, the Thunder's top competition in the Pacific Division in the future is Portland who generally ONLY runs Pick-N-Rolls (the only team I watched more than the Thunder last year). If Durant doesn't get better at this aspect of his game it will be an easy matchup to exploit for PDX regardless of whether or not he's putting up 40 pts. a game, and it will likely to be to the detriment of the team. While I agree that as his teammates develop this problem can be masked, it doesn't discount the fact that this is a weakness to his game that most other superstar players have overcome. I know he is 20 and WILL LIKELY be overcome due to his work ethic and talent, but in the short term is an area of which he could improve.

Really, in my opinion, Abbott is just trying to come to terms with the ways in which Durant can improve as a player. If you all are happy with what he is currently then fine, but I don't think Abbott or I am, as it is quite obvious he has a ways to go before he can be considered to have a LeBron-like impact on a game (not just in terms of scoring). This isn't a slight, but a projection based on what I view as his ceiling; something that hasn't been reached yet, but is extremely possible for him to achieve. If he, or you for that matter, takes it as a slight, and he allows it to motivate him further, then that is all for the better. As a basketball fan I want to see players performing at the peak of their physical ability. I know Durant's teammates aren't near the player he is, but that doesn't discount from the journey he still has in front of him to become the player he, and you, want him to be.

[slick_watts]

I really think many of Kevin Durant's defensive problems stem from poor team defense and the absence of any defensive philosophy last season. A full offseason of Scott Brooks with a focus on becoming a smarter defensive team will go a long way toward correcting these issues.

My issue with Henry Abbots's reporting is that nobody really knows what adjusted +/- means. He's guessing that KD's poor defense and shot selection (disagree on the latter) is the culprit for the low score, but it could really be a number of things. Anything, really, since adjusted +/- is just a fancy way of interpreting what I call 'basketball macro'. It's just as easy to claim that KD's low +/- is a result of OKC's rotation, poor team defense, absence of any interior shotblocking, absence of any perimeter shooting, and skewing caused by early season blowouts.

It's obvious that KD has to improve on his defensive effort and technique; what 20 year old NBA sophomore does not?

I disagree with Abbot that KD's shot selection was poor last season. During the meat of the season, after PJ was fired and before he got hurt, KD was shooting close to 50% from the floor and was arguably the most efficient wing scorer in the league through that period. Yes, he did take tough shots sometimes. He took his 'heat checks' and settled for jumpers when he might have had the lane. But he made those shots more than most, and when he's scoring as efficiently as he is, being the sole perimeter threat the opposition is always gunning for, you can't use that to explain his poor +/-. He thoroughly outproduced his direct opposition when he was on the court.

I really think this is a statistical abberation. OKC was bad last year, historically terrible for a good chunk of it. Hopefully this year we'll see things even out a bit.