Where do you rank Durant all time?

[Djoker]

For me he's in Tier 3 so basically guaranteed top 25 all time but no real top 12 case.

Tier 3 - Legends - #13-#25

Mikan
Oscar
West
Dr J
Moses
Karl
Robinson
Garnett
Dirk
Paul
Durant
Giannis
Jokic

[scrabbarista]

19th.

We just had this thread like a few weeks ago.

[JustBuzzin]

KD had the talent to be top 3. His lack of leadership really held him back from his real potential. Right now he's top 15 and I don't see him moving up this late in his career.

[Kingdibs19]

I posted this in the Suns trash thread. No one will agree with the players in each tier but the point remains that KD is not in the same tier as Lebron and Steph:

KD doesn’t belong in the Lebron or Steph tier like the media tries to make him out to be.

Tier 1: Lebron

Tier 2: Steph

Tier 3: KD, Harden, CP3, Kawhi, AD, Lillard

Tier 4: Butler, Westbrook, PG, Kyrie

Jokic and Giannis and Luka are from the next generation so didn’t include them.

[The High Cyde]

I’m not sure. Behind Steph for sure but ahead of Giannis, maybe?

[Optms]

Top 25, for sure.

[Chanel Bomber]

For me he's in Tier 3 so basically guaranteed top 25 all time but no real top 12 case.

Tier 3 - Legends - #13-#25

Mikan
Oscar
West
Dr J
Moses
Karl
Robinson
Garnett
Dirk
Paul
Durant
Giannis
Jokic

I don't see any rationale for putting Durant in the same category as Jokic. Jokic is in a different class entirely, and his 1 championship ring is infinitely more meaningful than Durant's two.

Durant was a great scorer but I can't help but feel he's a bit of a fraud in those conversations. He essentially stole those two championship rings with Golden State - these came free.

As a player, I think it's fair to put him in the same general tier as Dirk, Giannis, Garnett, Malone, West and Dr. J. All-time great basketball players, but not on the same level as legends such as Curry, LeBron, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic or Bird (I rate Jokic as just short of that tier).

But the championships these guys won were all much more meaningful and hard-earned than Durant's, so he should fall behind them within that tier (alongside Malone).

History should not forget the circumstances behind his two championship rings. They're completely watered down compared to the borderline messianic achievements of Dirk and Giannis, or the pain and psychological barriers West had to overcome to finally win a title. They don't mean nearly as much.

[mikejames23]

Really really good, just short of Kobe or Curry, probably around 12. He was dangerous for a long time IMO, and is still going strong until 37.

I have it as 10. kobe 11. bird 12. durant 13. joker 14. KG

[Djoker]

For me he's in Tier 3 so basically guaranteed top 25 all time but no real top 12 case.

Tier 3 - Legends - #13-#25

Mikan
Oscar
West
Dr J
Moses
Karl
Robinson
Garnett
Dirk
Paul
Durant
Giannis
Jokic

I don't see any rationale for putting Durant in the same category as Jokic. Jokic is in a different class entirely, and his 1 championship ring is infinitely more meaningful than Durant's two.

Durant was a great scorer but I can't help but feel he's a bit of a fraud in those conversations. He essentially stole those two championship rings with Golden State - these came free.

As a player, I think it's fair to put him in the same general tier as Dirk, Giannis, Garnett, Malone, West and Dr. J. All-time great basketball players, but not on the same level as legends such as Curry, LeBron, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic or Bird (I rate Jokic as just short of that tier).

But the championships these guys won were all much more meaningful and hard-earned than Durant's, so he should fall behind them within that tier (alongside Malone).

History should not forget the circumstances behind his two championship rings. They're completely watered down compared to the borderline messianic achievements of Dirk and Giannis, or the pain and psychological barriers West had to overcome to finally win a title. They don't mean nearly as much.

I agree with a lot of your post. Despite being in the same tier, I already have Jokic ahead and I think Jokic is on pace to join that next tier and completely clear Durant but he still needs to do a bit more. His prime is a bit too short right now.

[70sFan]

Top 25, last time I think I had him 21st.

[zimpy27]

Not in the top 15.

Maybe around 20th?

[web123888]

He has zero case over the big 12 of Jordan, LeBron, Wilt/Kareem/Russell/Shaq/Hakeem, Magic, Bird, Duncan, Kobe, Curry as he couldn’t legitimately lead a team to titles like those guys did.

Other than current longevity it’s hard to picture why he’d end up higher than Jokic or Giannis all time as well.

I don’t really know much about them but given their relative status, not sure about guys like Moses, Dr. J, West, Oscar as well.

Currently the absolute highest I could see is #13 but you could easily bounce him back to the back end of the top 20.

[bledredwine]

A little behind Lebron and ahead of Steph.

Yes, I just think that he was a better player than Steph. He also has the two FMVP's with Steph on his team. He also took it to Lebron every single of their three finals. No one can deny that talent no matter how badly they want to.

[hardenASG13]

For me he's in Tier 3 so basically guaranteed top 25 all time but no real top 12 case.

Tier 3 - Legends - #13-#25

Mikan
Oscar
West
Dr J
Moses
Karl
Robinson
Garnett
Dirk
Paul
Durant
Giannis
Jokic

I don't see any rationale for putting Durant in the same category as Jokic. Jokic is in a different class entirely, and his 1 championship ring is infinitely more meaningful than Durant's two.

Durant was a great scorer but I can't help but feel he's a bit of a fraud in those conversations. He essentially stole those two championship rings with Golden State - these came free.

As a player, I think it's fair to put him in the same general tier as Dirk, Giannis, Garnett, Malone, West and Dr. J. All-time great basketball players, but not on the same level as legends such as Curry, LeBron, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic or Bird (I rate Jokic as just short of that tier).

But the championships these guys won were all much more meaningful and hard-earned than Durant's, so he should fall behind them within that tier (alongside Malone).

History should not forget the circumstances behind his two championship rings. They're completely watered down compared to the borderline messianic achievements of Dirk and Giannis, or the pain and psychological barriers West had to overcome to finally win a title. They don't mean nearly as much.

I agree with a lot of your post. Despite being in the same tier, I already have Jokic ahead and I think Jokic is on pace to join that next tier and completely clear Durant but he still needs to do a bit more. His prime is a bit too short right now.

I've asked this to many posters here and rarely get a response. Maybe one of you will answer.

Why is Jokic beating the:
23' twolves (42-40 team, led by a younger Edwards, and KAT who was banged up that year)
23 Suns (45-37 team, acquired KD at the deadline for all their depth, and he only played a dozen or so games before the playoffs)
23 Lakers (43-39 team, had AD/Old lebron)
23 Heat (44-38 team who caught fire early in the playoffs and was running on fumes)

More impressive than OKC Durant beating teams like:
2012 San Antonio (50-16 team, had home court advantage, led by Tim Duncan/Manu/Parker. Had won 20 straight games before OKC beat them 4 straight in the WCF)
2014 Clippers (57-25 team, two top 10 players at the time in their primes in CP3 and Blake Griffin)
2016 Spurs (67-15 team, had home court advantage)

The teams OKC took down in the playoffs with KD were significantly better than any team Jokic has beat with Denver, certainly any during the 23 finals run (and there hasn't been much outside of that). Like, way significantly better. KDs thunder clearly could've steamrolled Denvers 23 path. The only teams they lost to when healthy from 2012 until KD left were the 2012 Heat, 2014 Spurs (though Ibaka was banged up), and 2016 Warriors. Yes they had Westbrook, who is better than any player Jokic has played with. But they also had embarrassingly bad shooting and center play most of that time too.

So why is beating lesser teams more impressive?

[Duffman100]

13-20 is my guess.

[Big J]

I used to have him top 15, but he's lost some ground in the last couple of years and is now only top 25.

[pr0wler]

Top 15. Would be higher if he had a tougher mentality but he's lacking a bit of that edge and competitive mind set to put him in the same level as Kobe etc.

[Chanel Bomber]

I don't see any rationale for putting Durant in the same category as Jokic. Jokic is in a different class entirely, and his 1 championship ring is infinitely more meaningful than Durant's two.

Durant was a great scorer but I can't help but feel he's a bit of a fraud in those conversations. He essentially stole those two championship rings with Golden State - these came free.

As a player, I think it's fair to put him in the same general tier as Dirk, Giannis, Garnett, Malone, West and Dr. J. All-time great basketball players, but not on the same level as legends such as Curry, LeBron, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic or Bird (I rate Jokic as just short of that tier).

But the championships these guys won were all much more meaningful and hard-earned than Durant's, so he should fall behind them within that tier (alongside Malone).

History should not forget the circumstances behind his two championship rings. They're completely watered down compared to the borderline messianic achievements of Dirk and Giannis, or the pain and psychological barriers West had to overcome to finally win a title. They don't mean nearly as much.

I agree with a lot of your post. Despite being in the same tier, I already have Jokic ahead and I think Jokic is on pace to join that next tier and completely clear Durant but he still needs to do a bit more. His prime is a bit too short right now.

I've asked this to many posters here and rarely get a response. Maybe one of you will answer.

Why is Jokic beating the:
23' twolves (42-40 team, led by a younger Edwards, and KAT who was banged up that year)
23 Suns (45-37 team, acquired KD at the deadline for all their depth, and he only played a dozen or so games before the playoffs)
23 Lakers (43-39 team, had AD/Old lebron)
23 Heat (44-38 team who caught fire early in the playoffs and was running on fumes)

More impressive than OKC Durant beating teams like:
2012 San Antonio (50-16 team, had home court advantage, led by Tim Duncan/Manu/Parker. Had won 20 straight games before OKC beat them 4 straight in the WCF)
2014 Clippers (57-25 team, two top 10 players at the time in their primes in CP3 and Blake Griffin)
2016 Spurs (67-15 team, had home court advantage)

The teams OKC took down in the playoffs with KD were significantly better than any team Jokic has beat with Denver, certainly any during the 23 finals run (and there hasn't been much outside of that). Like, way significantly better. KDs thunder clearly could've steamrolled Denvers 23 path. The only teams they lost to when healthy from 2012 until KD left were the 2012 Heat, 2014 Spurs (though Ibaka was banged up), and 2016 Warriors. Yes they had Westbrook, who is better than any player Jokic has played with. But they also had embarrassingly bad shooting and center play most of that time too.

So why is beating lesser teams more impressive?

I don't think it's necessarily more impressive per se, but how can Denver's path to the championship be held against Jokic? He didn't exactly choose the level of competition he'd be playing against. I can't back this statistically, but we're also in a league where CBA rules enforce greater parity than in the 2010s, so the landscape is less polarized, with fewer elite teams and tanking teams. The same rules that have prevented Denver from building on their success in terms of roster construction.

Durant in OKC arguably faced better teams but he also arguably had better supporting casts with Westbrook as his sidekick, as well as Ibaka. And both realities were enabled by the broader NBA ecosystem of the time.

As for your last question, which I find quite interesting, I think Durant faced dominant teams who were slightly superior largely because they were led by players who were a tier above him (Steph and LeBron, with the Spurs being an all-time great collective). Durant was a fantastic player but he didn't have the gargantuan impact on winning that Steph and LeBron had. He fell just short.

And I think statistically Jokic is reaching a level of play that is in the same class as LeBron and Curry, and above Durant.

But the context around them has shifted.

[hardenASG13]

I agree with a lot of your post. Despite being in the same tier, I already have Jokic ahead and I think Jokic is on pace to join that next tier and completely clear Durant but he still needs to do a bit more. His prime is a bit too short right now.

I've asked this to many posters here and rarely get a response. Maybe one of you will answer.

Why is Jokic beating the:
23' twolves (42-40 team, led by a younger Edwards, and KAT who was banged up that year)
23 Suns (45-37 team, acquired KD at the deadline for all their depth, and he only played a dozen or so games before the playoffs)
23 Lakers (43-39 team, had AD/Old lebron)
23 Heat (44-38 team who caught fire early in the playoffs and was running on fumes)

More impressive than OKC Durant beating teams like:
2012 San Antonio (50-16 team, had home court advantage, led by Tim Duncan/Manu/Parker. Had won 20 straight games before OKC beat them 4 straight in the WCF)
2014 Clippers (57-25 team, two top 10 players at the time in their primes in CP3 and Blake Griffin)
2016 Spurs (67-15 team, had home court advantage)

The teams OKC took down in the playoffs with KD were significantly better than any team Jokic has beat with Denver, certainly any during the 23 finals run (and there hasn't been much outside of that). Like, way significantly better. KDs thunder clearly could've steamrolled Denvers 23 path. The only teams they lost to when healthy from 2012 until KD left were the 2012 Heat, 2014 Spurs (though Ibaka was banged up), and 2016 Warriors. Yes they had Westbrook, who is better than any player Jokic has played with. But they also had embarrassingly bad shooting and center play most of that time too.

So why is beating lesser teams more impressive?

I don't think it's necessarily more impressive per se, but how can Denver's path to the championship be held against Jokic? He didn't exactly choose the level of competition he'd be playing against. I can't back this statistically, but we're also in a league where CBA rules enforce greater parity than in the 2010s, so the landscape is less polarized, with fewer elite teams and tanking teams. The same rules that have prevented Denver from building on their success in terms of roster construction.

Durant in OKC arguably faced better teams but he also arguably had better supporting casts with Westbrook as his sidekick, as well as Ibaka. And both realities were enabled by the broader NBA ecosystem of the time.

As for your last question, which I find quite interesting, I think Durant faced dominant teams who were slightly superior largely because they were led by players who were a tier above him (Steph and LeBron, with the Spurs being an all-time great collective). Durant was a fantastic player but he didn't have the gargantuan impact on winning that Steph and LeBron had. He fell just short.

And I think statistically Jokic is reaching a level of play that is in the same class as LeBron and Curry, and above Durant.

But the context around them has shifted.

I don't hold the 23 path against Jokic, but I don't think it has the incredible value some here think it does. Like, I don't think it proves more than the wins I mentioned by KDs OKC teams do. Why would it? He beat lesser teams.

I agree Westbrook was better, by alot, than any teammate Jokic has had. But those OKC teams had terrible spacing and shooting compared to the other top teams in the league during their time, and always played a lane clogging center (Perkins and later Adams) way too much. Top to bottom they were pretty poor rosters, especially compared to the teams they beat that I mentioned. KD and Russ were just that good.

I don't think 2016 Steph outplayed Durant at all in that series, the warriors just had more shooting and OKCs offense ground to a halt due to their lack of it. The 2015 warriors also broke through the year KD was out for OKC. Who knows how that would've looked. He only got the 1 crack at LeBron with OKC, and that was an extremely young OKC team. And he did beat that historic spurs collective, more than once, as mentioned.

I get slamming him for going to Golden State (although it did turn them to maybe the most talented team ever) but I think his accomplishments prior to going there get overlooked. If Westbrook didn't get hurt in 2013, OKC was the favorite to come out of the west, losing to the 2014 spurs is nothing to be ashamed of, and then KD was hurt in 2015. Coming up 1 game short in 2016 of knocking off the 67 win spurs and 73 win warriors without HCA also isn't something to knock him on. His last real gasp while being elite seems to have been 2021 brooklyn, who I maintain had Kyrie not got injured, would've beaten Milwaukee and gone on to win the title. He's had some bad breaks injury wise that led to some missed titles. Aside from in 2016, I don't think Curry was ever a better player.

[Chanel Bomber]

I've asked this to many posters here and rarely get a response. Maybe one of you will answer.

Why is Jokic beating the:
23' twolves (42-40 team, led by a younger Edwards, and KAT who was banged up that year)
23 Suns (45-37 team, acquired KD at the deadline for all their depth, and he only played a dozen or so games before the playoffs)
23 Lakers (43-39 team, had AD/Old lebron)
23 Heat (44-38 team who caught fire early in the playoffs and was running on fumes)

More impressive than OKC Durant beating teams like:
2012 San Antonio (50-16 team, had home court advantage, led by Tim Duncan/Manu/Parker. Had won 20 straight games before OKC beat them 4 straight in the WCF)
2014 Clippers (57-25 team, two top 10 players at the time in their primes in CP3 and Blake Griffin)
2016 Spurs (67-15 team, had home court advantage)

The teams OKC took down in the playoffs with KD were significantly better than any team Jokic has beat with Denver, certainly any during the 23 finals run (and there hasn't been much outside of that). Like, way significantly better. KDs thunder clearly could've steamrolled Denvers 23 path. The only teams they lost to when healthy from 2012 until KD left were the 2012 Heat, 2014 Spurs (though Ibaka was banged up), and 2016 Warriors. Yes they had Westbrook, who is better than any player Jokic has played with. But they also had embarrassingly bad shooting and center play most of that time too.

So why is beating lesser teams more impressive?

I don't think it's necessarily more impressive per se, but how can Denver's path to the championship be held against Jokic? He didn't exactly choose the level of competition he'd be playing against. I can't back this statistically, but we're also in a league where CBA rules enforce greater parity than in the 2010s, so the landscape is less polarized, with fewer elite teams and tanking teams. The same rules that have prevented Denver from building on their success in terms of roster construction.

Durant in OKC arguably faced better teams but he also arguably had better supporting casts with Westbrook as his sidekick, as well as Ibaka. And both realities were enabled by the broader NBA ecosystem of the time.

As for your last question, which I find quite interesting, I think Durant faced dominant teams who were slightly superior largely because they were led by players who were a tier above him (Steph and LeBron, with the Spurs being an all-time great collective). Durant was a fantastic player but he didn't have the gargantuan impact on winning that Steph and LeBron had. He fell just short.

And I think statistically Jokic is reaching a level of play that is in the same class as LeBron and Curry, and above Durant.

But the context around them has shifted.

I don't hold the 23 path against Jokic, but I don't think it has the incredible value some here think it does. Like, I don't think it proves more than the wins I mentioned by KDs OKC teams do. Why would it? He beat lesser teams.

I agree Westbrook was better, by alot, than any teammate Jokic has had. But those OKC teams had terrible spacing and shooting compared to the other top teams in the league during their time, and always played a lane clogging center (Perkins and later Adams) way too much. Top to bottom they were pretty poor rosters, especially compared to the teams they beat that I mentioned. KD and Russ were just that good.

I don't think 2016 Steph outplayed Durant at all in that series, the warriors just had more shooting and OKCs offense ground to a halt due to their lack of it. The 2015 warriors also broke through the year KD was out for OKC. Who knows how that would've looked. He only got the 1 crack at LeBron with OKC, and that was an extremely young OKC team. And he did beat that historic spurs collective, more than once, as mentioned.

I get slamming him for going to Golden State (although it did turn them to maybe the most talented team ever) but I think his accomplishments prior to going there get overlooked. If Westbrook didn't get hurt in 2013, OKC was the favorite to come out of the west, losing to the 2014 spurs is nothing to be ashamed of, and then KD was hurt in 2015. Coming up 1 game short in 2016 of knocking off the 67 win spurs and 73 win warriors without HCA also isn't something to knock him on. His last real gasp while being elite seems to have been 2021 brooklyn, who I maintain had Kyrie not got injured, would've beaten Milwaukee and gone on to win the title. He's had some bad breaks injury wise that led to some missed titles. Aside from in 2016, I don't think Curry was ever a better player.

Well I think Curry was a better player than Durant for the most part, and I think most impact metrics would back this claim.

You mention the spacing and it's fair point. But one thing that you're overlooking is the space that was generated by Curry's gravity. He attracted a lot more attention and aggressive coverages than Durant with the threat of his pull-up shooting, and it generated more 4-on-3 opportunities, more driving lanes, more open looks. And sure, the Warriors had another all-time great shooter in Klay Thompson, but they also had some shaky 3-point shooters who all benefitted from the attention that Curry drew.

But in any case, let's not get sidetracked. I don't think you've addressed the point about the broader NBA landscape and how much more parity there is in the league now.

The Nuggets didn't face any juggernaut on their way to the Finals, that is true. They also weren't a juggernaut themselves. Jokic never playing with another All-Star, and the CBA rules, are largely responsible for this.

The Thunder faced better teams, but they were a 60-win team themselves. Playing with another legend in Westbrook helped in this regard, but so did the CBA of the time, which created more disparity between teams.

The NBA today is much flatter. It's harder to be a juggernaut, and it's harder to find juggernauts to face.