Highest reasonable all-time ranking for Kevin Durant?

[70sFan]

Wouldn't a similar methodology also mean it was reasonable to believe that the Sun circled the Earth back in the 16th century?

I mean, it was reasonable to believe that the Sun circled the Earth in the 16th century. Even with the arrival of Copernicus heliocentric hypothesis, his results were inconclusive and most scientists supported geocentric model because it was backed up by observations far better than the new one.

It turned out that scientists were wrong (not the first or the last time), but it's a bad analogy because it was definitely reasonable to trust the most accurate measurements and most qualified scientists in the world at that time.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Much of it would depend on how you view KDs warriors years i think

I’m higher than most people in the board in peak KD and probably the lowest person in KD that I know irl

[AEnigma]

Wouldn't a similar methodology also mean it was reasonable to believe that the Sun circled the Earth back in the 16th century?

I mean, it was reasonable to believe that the Sun circled the Earth in the 16th century. Even with the arrival of Copernicus heliocentric hypothesis, his results were inconclusive and most scientists supported geocentric model because it was backed up by observations far better than the new one.

It turned out that scientists were wrong (not the first or the last time), but it's a bad analogy because it was definitely reasonable to trust the most accurate measurements and most qualified scientists in the world at that time.

What exactly “supports” geocentrism.

If every coach thinks threes are a mostly wasteful shot because players shoot better closer to the basket and they are better off practising those closer shots, that belief — and a public deferring to their collective belief — is not reasonable by rule of “expertise”. There needs to be a real basis.

[Cavsfansince84]

I mean, it was reasonable to believe that the Sun circled the Earth in the 16th century. Even with the arrival of Copernicus heliocentric hypothesis, his results were inconclusive and most scientists supported geocentric model because it was backed up by observations far better than the new one.

It turned out that scientists were wrong (not the first or the last time), but it's a bad analogy because it was definitely reasonable to trust the most accurate measurements and most qualified scientists in the world at that time.

That's exactly what my point was. That base of knowledge determines what we see as reasonable. For people who I would say have a lower base of knowledge(as well as questionable criterias) KD over Hakeem might seem reasonable while I would say that for those who have bothered to take the time to expand their base and ways of evaluating players it becomes less reasonable. Which sometimes means the more we learn the more we are at odds with consensus type opinions much like Galileo was.

[70sFan]

I mean, it was reasonable to believe that the Sun circled the Earth in the 16th century. Even with the arrival of Copernicus heliocentric hypothesis, his results were inconclusive and most scientists supported geocentric model because it was backed up by observations far better than the new one.

It turned out that scientists were wrong (not the first or the last time), but it's a bad analogy because it was definitely reasonable to trust the most accurate measurements and most qualified scientists in the world at that time.

That's exactly what my point was. That base of knowledge determines what we see as reasonable. For people who I would say have a lower base of knowledge(as well as questionable criterias) KD over Hakeem might seem reasonable while I would say that for those who have bothered to take the time to expand their base and ways of evaluating players it becomes less reasonable. Which sometimes means the more we learn the more we are at odds with consensus type opinions much like Galileo was.

Still though, these scientists didn't use questionable criteria and their knowledge certainly was lacking, but it was still the highest in the world. I mean, it's not like Copernicus model made everyone realize they were stupid - it took time and work to prove it's the right one.

[70sFan]

What exactly “supports” geocentrism.

Right now - nothing, but in the 16th century, heliocentric model provided significantly less accurate prediction of the paths of celestial bodies. It wasn't until the next generation (Brahe, Kepler), who provided more accurate measurements and improved heliocentric model, when the geocentric model finally lost.

[Cavsfansince84]

Still though, these scientists didn't use questionable criteria and their knowledge certainly was lacking, but it was still the highest in the world. I mean, it's not like Copernicus model made everyone realize they were stupid - it took time and work to prove it's the right one.

Right but my larger point was simply that consensus opinions can be blatantly wrong for lack of knowledge. They aren't an immutable baseline of what should be seen as reasonable.

[70sFan]

Still though, these scientists didn't use questionable criteria and their knowledge certainly was lacking, but it was still the highest in the world. I mean, it's not like Copernicus model made everyone realize they were stupid - it took time and work to prove it's the right one.

Right but my larger point was simply that consensus opinions can be blatantly wrong for lack of knowledge. They aren't an immutable baseline of what should be seen as reasonable.

Sure, I agree with that.

[lessthanjake]

Just came across this in another thread about something different, and thought it was worth noting here:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/33297498/the-nba-75th-anniversary-team-ranked-where-76-basketball-legends-check-our-list

As many here surely know, back in 2022, for the NBA’s 75th anniversary, ESPN did a top 75 all-time list that they had what they call an “expert panel” vote on (how “expert” the people on the panel really were is almost certainly up for debate, but at the very least the rankings weren’t just one person’s opinion and were opinions of a bunch of people who make a living watching/covering the sport). It had Kevin Durant at #12, and indeed had him just above Hakeem Olajuwon. I *certainly* don’t think we should take ESPN lists as the gospel, but I think this highlights the fact that it wouldn’t be *outside the realm of reasonableness* to have Durant ranked ahead of Hakeem. I think we’re losing the plot a bit if people are so hardened in their subjective evaluations that they are insisting (in certain cases quite aggressively) that it would be impossible to reasonably come to a conclusion that has actually ended up in something like this. You don’t have to agree with it (I don’t either!), but the realm of reasonableness goes well beyond your own specific views!

Wouldn't a similar methodology also mean it was reasonable to believe that the Sun circled the Earth back in the 16th century? I would say if you aren't really into player evaluation and dedicating yourself to actually learning how to use metrics and other things then having a criteria which I would see as decently reasonable(which Giannis coming in at 18 there tells me that any sort of prime longevity was not high at all on most of the voters criteria) then having KD higher than Hakeem is reasonable.
I think there is a bit of gulf though when it comes to just covering the nba or being an ex player and really being willing to take many things into consideration and putting enough time into it to have a good idea of how to balance so many factors such as primes, peak, longevity, intangibles and team success on top of the numbers/metric side of it. I think you're kind of coming into this like we're mainly just fans who like to compare players when a lot of people on this board have put considerably large amounts of time into trying to learn how to evaluate players in the best way possible and also expanding our knowledge enough that we can do so for players from 6-7 decades ago.
So no I simply cannot sit here and agree with you or anyone else who want to think that these media types who are asked to take part in these polls have even put a fraction of the time into this kind of thing that many posters on this board have who have been doing it as a hobby for anywhere from 5 to 30 years. What makes something reasonable is subjective based upon our own understanding of the said thing.

No, it’s not like that, because that is a question of objective fact, and who is the “greater” basketball player is inherently a subjective question. If a view on a *subjective* question is held by enough people, it is essentially ipso facto within the realm of reasonable.

And I get your point that a lot of people on these forums have dedicated a lot of time to analyzing the game—in some/many cases surely more than the people who voted in the thing I just linked to. But it’s not like all that analysis has resulted in people here agreeing on how players should be ranked. It’s a subjective exercise so that’d be impossible! You say people have been “learn[ing] how to evaluate players in the best way possible” but the question of what’s the “best way” to analyze players is itself fairly subjective. How are you measuring what the best metric or heuristic is? Is it a metric that most closely approximates an on/off rating that controls for teammate and opponent quality? That sounds good, but basketball is about winning games, not about having the highest point differential at the end of the season (very closely related concepts but not always the same!). So is it a metric that correlates more than other metrics with winning games? But the sport is ultimately actually about winning titles. So is a metric the best one when it correlates most with winning titles? But there’s been so few titles that evaluating metrics on that basis would just spit out statistical noise. Is what we care about simply how well someone played in the aggregate, or do we care most about certain specific situations that feel like higher “leverage,” such as playoff games or the ends of close games? If we want to weight things by leverage, how do we decide the weighting we give to different situations? Is there an objective answer to the question of how much to weigh regular season vs. playoff performance? Is there an objective answer to the question of how to evaluate peak vs. longevity? When ultimately evaluating a player’s greatness, how much does sheer team success weigh? Does it matter not at all because it’s a team game and if a player that didn’t win has better “impact” metrics then they played better than a guy that won? Or does it a matter a ton, because “greatness” is a squishy concept that is also about significance to the game, in which case the mere fact of winning titles has major weight? Or maybe somewhere in between? Do we layer on a preference for modern players because they’re better/more athletic in an absolute sense, or do we measure greatness based on how they stacked up in their era? Or, again, do we do something in between? I could go on and on. There’s no “right” answer to these sorts of questions. They depend in part on subjective/philosophical questions of what is most important to you as an evaluator, weighed alongside technical questions of data quality. And that’s not even getting into the fact that a lot of things that clearly are part of the puzzle (things like leadership) simply cannot be measured in any meaningful way in the first place, and two people can wildly disagree on both their importance and how players stack up in them. And there’s even squishier things that could reasonably go into a “greatness” evaluation—such as a sense that someone “changed the game” or finding someone’s game visually appealing to watch. There’s no purely objective way to say what the “best way” to evaluate basketball players’ greatness is.

And, to be clear, I’m not nihilistically saying advanced metrics are bad or that efforts to use or improve them are fruitless exercises. I wouldn’t agree with that at all! I like advanced metrics, and I also do think that it is very helpful to try to improve them. For example, on/off numbers are fine, but I think it’s very helpful when people try to construct on/off metrics that aim to control for teammate and opponent quality. That sort of thing is a measure that I would personally put a lot of weight on. And I think we can probably say that some metrics are just a flat improvement upon more simplistic measures that get at the same question (such as raw on/off numbers vs. more complex on/off numbers). So I like the work people do to improve things and I think it has value! But it doesn’t erase the inherent subjectivity in the overall endeavor. Measuring basketball “greatness” is not a search for some immutable scientific truth.

All this is to say that I think the realm of reasonableness is much larger than some want to acknowledge, because I think people are a bit stuck in the idea that their method of evaluation is the “best way” and therefore that nothing is reasonable unless it logically follows from their preferred method(s) of evaluation. But determining the best way to analyze players’ “greatness” has a huge amount of subjectivity baked into it, which means that the realm of reasonableness is naturally going to be much larger than one would conclude if they defined reasonability to only be what follows from their own preferred methodology.

[Cavsfansince84]

All this is to say that I think the realm of reasonableness is much larger than some want to acknowledge, because I think people are a bit stuck in the idea that their method of evaluation is the “best way” and therefore that nothing is reasonable unless it logically follows from their preferred method(s) of evaluation. But determining the best way to analyze players’ “greatness” has a huge amount of subjectivity baked into it, which means that the realm of reasonableness is naturally going to be much larger than one would conclude if they defined reasonability to only be what follows from their own preferred methodology.

What I mean by best way possible is to at least attempt to incorporate new forms of input in an objective way to improve our own analysis of what makes one player better than another. I don't agree that its an entirely subjective thing. The same way I think it makes sense to say that the list I use now is inherently better than the one I would have made 20 years ago based on advances in evaluation and my own study of these players.
Criteria and how we view a player holistically is somewhat subjective. I might even largely agree with how someone ranks players according to one criteria(such as best 3 year stretch) but then again, if someone is using that as the primary way for ranking players all time then I would not see that as a reasonable list. So that's the basis of the question imo. Both what criteria and how those are applied to reach what each of us would see as a reasonable end result for forming a list. So without the ability to even question the criteria used to form these list(s) or what methods they used to try and measure player impact I can't accept this idea that it must be reasonable simply because its what this group of people's opinions amalgamates into.
It's fine if you do but I don't accept that as some kind of baseline of what constitutes a reasonable opinion. Just as I think people tend to overrate players of the last 20 years compared to players from prior to 1980. That doesn't mean doing so is reasonable either. Either way I think people get a little too hung up on the idea of what is reasonable anyhow. If we can accept that its subjective then what I see as reasonable shouldn't bother anyone else.

[OhayoKD]

Just came across this in another thread about something different, and thought it was worth noting here:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/33297498/the-nba-75th-anniversary-team-ranked-where-76-basketball-legends-check-our-list

As many here surely know, back in 2022, for the NBA’s 75th anniversary, ESPN did a top 75 all-time list that they had what they call an “expert panel” vote on (how “expert” the people on the panel really were is almost certainly up for debate, but at the very least the rankings weren’t just one person’s opinion and were opinions of a bunch of people who make a living watching/covering the sport). It had Kevin Durant at #12, and indeed had him just above Hakeem Olajuwon. I *certainly* don’t think we should take ESPN lists as the gospel, but I think this highlights the fact that it wouldn’t be *outside the realm of reasonableness* to have Durant ranked ahead of Hakeem. I think we’re losing the plot a bit if people are so hardened in their subjective evaluations that they are insisting (in certain cases quite aggressively) that it would be impossible to reasonably come to a conclusion that has actually ended up in something like this. You don’t have to agree with it (I don’t either!), but the realm of reasonableness goes well beyond your own specific views!

Wouldn't a similar methodology also mean it was reasonable to believe that the Sun circled the Earth back in the 16th century? I would say if you aren't really into player evaluation and dedicating yourself to actually learning how to use metrics and other things then having a criteria which I would see as decently reasonable(which Giannis coming in at 18 there tells me that any sort of prime longevity was not high at all on most of the voters criteria) then having KD higher than Hakeem is reasonable.
I think there is a bit of gulf though when it comes to just covering the nba or being an ex player and really being willing to take many things into consideration and putting enough time into it to have a good idea of how to balance so many factors such as primes, peak, longevity, intangibles and team success on top of the numbers/metric side of it. I think you're kind of coming into this like we're mainly just fans who like to compare players when a lot of people on this board have put considerably large amounts of time into trying to learn how to evaluate players in the best way possible and also expanding our knowledge enough that we can do so for players from 6-7 decades ago.
So no I simply cannot sit here and agree with you or anyone else who want to think that these media types who are asked to take part in these polls have even put a fraction of the time into this kind of thing that many posters on this board have who have been doing it as a hobby for anywhere from 5 to 30 years. What makes something reasonable is subjective based upon our own understanding of the said thing.

No, it’s not like that, because that is a question of objective fact, and who is the “greater” basketball player is inherently a subjective question. If a view on a *subjective* question is held by enough people, it is essentially ipso facto within the realm of reasonable.

"Objective facts" are objective because there is a pre-set frame-work where that which is observable and replicable to a certain degree should be treated as a fact. There is no objective point where "likelihood" becomes "certainty"

Similarly with basketball, good or bad or better or worse are subjective value judgments, but we can establish frame-works for good or bad and then assess whether conclusions are internally consistent with said frame-works.

KD cannot be objectively better at basketball than Hakeem and vice versa. But we can objectively say it is "less likely than the reverse" that Durant is more valuable to winning championships than Hakeem and if winning championships is the dominant-factor of a frameworks in questions, holding Durant higher can argued to be "unreasonable".

At least publicly, ESPN primarily values championships and a player's ability to acquire championships. Everything else is a means to that end. That does not require consensus to derive. And thus "reasonable" should not hinge on consensus when making that sort of judgment.

KD>Hakeem is fine. KD>Hakeem because he was more valuable towards winning is probably not. KD> Hakeem because Westbrook was not very valuable in 2016 is wild.

[krii]

I mean, it was reasonable to believe that the Sun circled the Earth in the 16th century. Even with the arrival of Copernicus heliocentric hypothesis, his results were inconclusive and most scientists supported geocentric model because it was backed up by observations far better than the new one.

It turned out that scientists were wrong (not the first or the last time), but it's a bad analogy because it was definitely reasonable to trust the most accurate measurements and most qualified scientists in the world at that time.

That's exactly what my point was. That base of knowledge determines what we see as reasonable. For people who I would say have a lower base of knowledge(as well as questionable criterias) KD over Hakeem might seem reasonable while I would say that for those who have bothered to take the time to expand their base and ways of evaluating players it becomes less reasonable. Which sometimes means the more we learn the more we are at odds with consensus type opinions much like Galileo was.

Still though, these scientists didn't use questionable criteria and their knowledge certainly was lacking, but it was still the highest in the world. I mean, it's not like Copernicus model made everyone realize they were stupid - it took time and work to prove it's the right one.

In fact, most of his contemporaries thought that it was Copernicus who was stupid. Especially in the Church circles, which were the dominant force behind the narrative creation of the era. For many, his theory was mathematical nonsense not backed by any hard proof.

The argument that any of the posters are using the 'wrong' approach to categorising NBA players is... to put it most politely, misplaced.

All this play will always be subjective. There is no objective form of determining the 'greatness' of the players yet, and all attempts end up in quibbles about methodology and algorithm. For there to be a tool that would do such a job and have the highest endorsement/approval rate amongst fans, it would have to take into account not only hard factors (i.e., statistical data of the player himself broken down into dozens if not hundreds of factors, compared, contrasted and analysed against every co-players they played with as well as similar analysis of the opponents' play (even the worst ones, from the end of the benches, who might influence every game; broken down into every game played in history, assessing the strength and quality of seasons, game models adopted, tactical and regulatory innovations, etc.). ), but also 'weak' factors (i.e. 'form factors' such as illnesses, injuries, family situations, and probably even things like temperature - in the old days the temperature could vary between arenas).

Theoretically, it is possible. Practically – until self-writing AI takes care of it – extremely difficult.

[70sFan]

In fact, most of his contemporaries thought that it was Copernicus who was stupid. Especially in the Church circles, which were the dominant force behind the narrative creation of the era. For many, his theory was mathematical nonsense not backed by any hard proof.

No, contemporaries didn't think Copernicus was stupid. They didn't think his hypothesis was mathematical nonsense - only that it was a mathematical trick that didn't work that well (because of the assumption that planets move on circular orbits). Copernicus had a tremendous intuition, he was a genius, but he didn't have solid evidences that his hypothesis is better.

Nobody called Copernicus stupid though, he was a very respected man.

[krii]

In fact, most of his contemporaries thought that it was Copernicus who was stupid. Especially in the Church circles, which were the dominant force behind the narrative creation of the era. For many, his theory was mathematical nonsense not backed by any hard proof.

No, contemporaries didn't think Copernicus was stupid. They didn't think his hypothesis was mathematical nonsense - only that it was a mathematical trick that didn't work that well (because of the assumption that planets move on circular orbits). Copernicus had a tremendous intuition, he was a genius, but he didn't have solid evidences that his hypothesis is better.

Nobody called Copernicus stupid though, he was a very respected man.

His contemporaries did not necessarily call him stupid, hence the italic font, but many thought his theories lacked sense and reason - above all 'God's' reason. Just a stylistic figure used in response to the earlier use of the phrase Copernicus was respected but by eminent scholars - not necessarily by everyone. In Poland, his theories were widely discussed, but outside strictly academic circles, often misunderstood. Besides, not long after his death, he became (along with his works) an object of unwanted interest, to call the Catholic Church's censorship mildly.

Let me point out that I'm a few years away from reading about him though. For obvious reasons, we had quite a bit on his biography in schools (I was born in Poland), at the university (including in the context of his monetary theory) and later on in life with various random readings. Nevertheless, that was some years ago, so absolutely do not take this as holding to the 'one and only truth', because I do not pretend to be an expert!

[70sFan]

In fact, most of his contemporaries thought that it was Copernicus who was stupid. Especially in the Church circles, which were the dominant force behind the narrative creation of the era. For many, his theory was mathematical nonsense not backed by any hard proof.

No, contemporaries didn't think Copernicus was stupid. They didn't think his hypothesis was mathematical nonsense - only that it was a mathematical trick that didn't work that well (because of the assumption that planets move on circular orbits). Copernicus had a tremendous intuition, he was a genius, but he didn't have solid evidences that his hypothesis is better.

Nobody called Copernicus stupid though, he was a very respected man.

His contemporaries did not necessarily call him stupid, hence the italic font, but many thought his theories lacked sense and reason - above all 'God's' reason. Just a stylistic figure used in response to the earlier use of the phrase Copernicus was respected but by eminent scholars - not necessarily by everyone. In Poland, his theories were widely discussed, but outside strictly academic circles, often misunderstood. Besides, not long after his death, he became (along with his works) an object of unwanted interest, to call the Catholic Church's censorship mildly.

Let me point out that I'm a few years away from reading about him though. For obvious reasons, we had quite a bit on his biography in schools (I was born in Poland), at the university (including in the context of his monetary theory) and later on in life with various random readings. Nevertheless, that was some years ago, so absolutely do not take this as holding to the 'one and only truth', because I do not pretend to be an expert!

I am from Poland and still live here, witam serdecznie!

It's normal that scientific theories are misunderstood and badly known outside of academic circles. The situation with Catholic Church is way more complicated than that, but I think it's not the place to discuss about it.

[Cavsfansince84]

The argument that any of the posters are using the 'wrong' approach to categorising NBA players is... to put it most politely, misplaced.

All this play will always be subjective. There is no objective form of determining the 'greatness' of the players yet, and all attempts end up in quibbles about methodology and algorithm. For there to be a tool that would do such a job and have the highest endorsement/approval rate amongst fans, it would have to take into account not only hard factors (i.e., statistical data of the player himself broken down into dozens if not hundreds of factors, compared, contrasted and analysed against every co-players they played with as well as similar analysis of the opponents' play (even the worst ones, from the end of the benches, who might influence every game; broken down into every game played in history, assessing the strength and quality of seasons, game models adopted, tactical and regulatory innovations, etc.). ), but also 'weak' factors (i.e. 'form factors' such as illnesses, injuries, family situations, and probably even things like temperature - in the old days the temperature could vary between arenas).

Theoretically, it is possible. Practically – until self-writing AI takes care of it – extremely difficult.

I'm having trouble who you are responding to with this reply but keep in mind the overall discussion has been centered around what is reasonable and the subjectivity which that word tends to imply. I don't recall much about the right or wrong way to go about it other than within the general framework of what would be reasonable to us as individuals. I wouldn't agree that ai will magically solve all of this for us either, other than it might make metrics more acceptable among common fans. My opinion is that the more info a person is open to understanding and using the more informed their opinions will be regardless of the overall methodology they claim to use.