Jerry West vs Kevin Durant

[The Explorer]

If there had been anyone that good back then, I'd rank them very highly, like I do Kareem. I'm just not going to give credit to a guard with no handle or proven 3pt shot, who made his bones guarding other inferior guards who lacked a modern dribble or 3pt shot.

Guard is just not a player type that translates to today's superior league.

Durant wouldn't show modern handles or proven 3p shot in the 1960s either.

KD is one guy where the handles discussion is irrelevant. He doesn't need to dribble much if at all when you port him to the 60s. You just give him the ball and watch as he unleashes his unstoppable shot from ridiculous distances at ridiculous percentages. Even without the 3pt line he'd warp everything and break the league.

This is one of the worst posts I've read. You speak in definitive terms with no substance.

What do you mean by warp everything?
What do you mean by break the league?
What do you mean by unstoppable shot?
What is considered a ridiculous distance?
What is considered a ridiculous percentage?
Why are you giving him imaginary abilities that he never had? He never had the ability to warp everything, nor did he ever break the league, nor did he shoot at ridiculous distances, nor did shoot ridiculous percentages. Seems like a lot of fabricated fairy tales to arrive at your conclusion.

[One_and_Done]

Durant wouldn't show modern handles or proven 3p shot in the 1960s either.

KD is one guy where the handles discussion is irrelevant. He doesn't need to dribble much if at all when you port him to the 60s. You just give him the ball and watch as he unleashes his unstoppable shot from ridiculous distances at ridiculous percentages. Even without the 3pt line he'd warp everything and break the league.

I doubt shooting 40% or even 50% from long twos would break the league. That's not how basketball works.

You couldn't be more wrong. The percentages KD can hit long range 2s from is more efficient than the rest of the league shot in general back then (even before we consider the boost KD gets from playing worse players). As such, the other team needs to rearrange their defensive game plan to start guarding him from the 3pt line and for long distance 2s. That wasn't how defenses back then worked, and it would open the court considerably. KD is also taking these shots instantly, with a release point that makes them unblockable, so you're scrambling out to the perimeter, afraid to even give him an inch.of space. That's game breaking.

[70sFan]

KD is one guy where the handles discussion is irrelevant. He doesn't need to dribble much if at all when you port him to the 60s. You just give him the ball and watch as he unleashes his unstoppable shot from ridiculous distances at ridiculous percentages. Even without the 3pt line he'd warp everything and break the league.

I doubt shooting 40% or even 50% from long twos would break the league. That's not how basketball works.

You couldn't be more wrong. The percentages KD can hit long range 2s from is more efficient than the rest of the league shot in general back then (even before we consider the boost KD gets from playing worse players). As such, the other team needs to rearrange their defensive game plan to start guarding him from the 3pt line and for long distance 2s. That wasn't how defenses back then worked, and it would open the court considerably. KD is also taking these shots instantly, with a release point that makes them unblockable, so you're scrambling out to the perimeter, afraid to even give him an inch.of space. That's game breaking.

Hitting shots at 50% from the outside isn't game breaking when it doesn't give you 3 points.

Also, it's ironic that you tell me how defenses worked back then. Tell me more about it - how shooters were defended then? I am very curious if you learned more about the game after our last exchange.

[One_and_Done]

I doubt shooting 40% or even 50% from long twos would break the league. That's not how basketball works.

You couldn't be more wrong. The percentages KD can hit long range 2s from is more efficient than the rest of the league shot in general back then (even before we consider the boost KD gets from playing worse players). As such, the other team needs to rearrange their defensive game plan to start guarding him from the 3pt line and for long distance 2s. That wasn't how defenses back then worked, and it would open the court considerably. KD is also taking these shots instantly, with a release point that makes them unblockable, so you're scrambling out to the perimeter, afraid to even give him an inch.of space. That's game breaking.

Hitting shots at 50% from the outside isn't game breaking when it doesn't give you 3 points.

Also, it's ironic that you tell me how defenses worked back then. Tell me more about it - how shooters were defended then? I am very curious if you learned more about the game after our last exchange.

What makes the 3 more valuable is it gets you more points per possession than a 2. While KD's long range shots won't equate to as much they would with a 3pt line, KD is still hitting those long 2s at a much better % than the 60s guys are hitting other shots. That means you have to guard him out there as a priority.

It won't warp things as much as 3pt shots would, but it's game breaking nonetheless. Nobody was coming off screens from 20 feet away and hitting night incontestable shots at that sort of percentage then. The whole reason the paint is congested back then is because that's where the highest efficiency shots are coming from. If there's now a guy who can be even more efficient from deep, it changes everything. You have to send guys (plural) to the perimeter, because he's not just going to be taking g isos, you have to chase him as he runs around screens too, and fires off instant release deathshots.

It's wild that you don't know this, yet are taking shots about me needing to 'learn the game more'.

[70sFan]

You couldn't be more wrong. The percentages KD can hit long range 2s from is more efficient than the rest of the league shot in general back then (even before we consider the boost KD gets from playing worse players). As such, the other team needs to rearrange their defensive game plan to start guarding him from the 3pt line and for long distance 2s. That wasn't how defenses back then worked, and it would open the court considerably. KD is also taking these shots instantly, with a release point that makes them unblockable, so you're scrambling out to the perimeter, afraid to even give him an inch.of space. That's game breaking.

Hitting shots at 50% from the outside isn't game breaking when it doesn't give you 3 points.

Also, it's ironic that you tell me how defenses worked back then. Tell me more about it - how shooters were defended then? I am very curious if you learned more about the game after our last exchange.

What makes the 3 more valuable is it gets you more points per possession than a 2. While KD's long range shots won't equate to as much they would with a 3pt line, KD is still hitting those long 2s at a much better % than the 60s guys are hitting other shots. That means you have to guard him out there as a priority.

It won't warp things as much as 3pt shots would, but it's game breaking nonetheless. Nobody was coming off screens from 20 feet away and hitting night incontestable shots at that sort of percentage then. The whole reason the paint is congested back then is because that's where the highest efficiency shots are coming from. If there's now a guy who can be even more efficient from deep, it changes everything. You have to send guys (plural) to the perimeter, because he's not just going to be taking g isos, you have to chase him as he runs around screens too, and fires off instant release deathshots.

It's wild that you don't know this, yet are taking shots about me needing to 'learn the game more'.

So you genuinely believe that Durant would be hitting long range shots at better efficiency than 1960s players converted rim attempts?

[theonlyclutch]

Hitting shots at 50% from the outside isn't game breaking when it doesn't give you 3 points.

Also, it's ironic that you tell me how defenses worked back then. Tell me more about it - how shooters were defended then? I am very curious if you learned more about the game after our last exchange.

What makes the 3 more valuable is it gets you more points per possession than a 2. While KD's long range shots won't equate to as much they would with a 3pt line, KD is still hitting those long 2s at a much better % than the 60s guys are hitting other shots. That means you have to guard him out there as a priority.

It won't warp things as much as 3pt shots would, but it's game breaking nonetheless. Nobody was coming off screens from 20 feet away and hitting night incontestable shots at that sort of percentage then. The whole reason the paint is congested back then is because that's where the highest efficiency shots are coming from. If there's now a guy who can be even more efficient from deep, it changes everything. You have to send guys (plural) to the perimeter, because he's not just going to be taking g isos, you have to chase him as he runs around screens too, and fires off instant release deathshots.

It's wild that you don't know this, yet are taking shots about me needing to 'learn the game more'.

So you genuinely believe that Durant would be hitting long range shots at better efficiency than 1960s players converted rim attempts?

Why does one need to beat that arbitrary bar in order for that to be a very effective offense?

Jordan wasn't hitting mid rangers at better than contemporary rim attempts but that sure doesn't stop his midrange prowess from being a key part of his GOAT argument.

[70sFan]

What makes the 3 more valuable is it gets you more points per possession than a 2. While KD's long range shots won't equate to as much they would with a 3pt line, KD is still hitting those long 2s at a much better % than the 60s guys are hitting other shots. That means you have to guard him out there as a priority.

It won't warp things as much as 3pt shots would, but it's game breaking nonetheless. Nobody was coming off screens from 20 feet away and hitting night incontestable shots at that sort of percentage then. The whole reason the paint is congested back then is because that's where the highest efficiency shots are coming from. If there's now a guy who can be even more efficient from deep, it changes everything. You have to send guys (plural) to the perimeter, because he's not just going to be taking g isos, you have to chase him as he runs around screens too, and fires off instant release deathshots.

It's wild that you don't know this, yet are taking shots about me needing to 'learn the game more'.

So you genuinely believe that Durant would be hitting long range shots at better efficiency than 1960s players converted rim attempts?

Why does one need to beat that arbitrary bar in order for that to be a very effective offense?

Jordan wasn't hitting mid rangers at better than contemporary rim attempts but that sure doesn't stop his midrange prowess from being a key part of his GOAT argument.

This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the hypothetical in which Durant wouldn't be able to handle the ball and break down defense. Jordan without his dribble game wouldn't be a GOAT candidate on offensive end.

[One_and_Done]

Hitting shots at 50% from the outside isn't game breaking when it doesn't give you 3 points.

Also, it's ironic that you tell me how defenses worked back then. Tell me more about it - how shooters were defended then? I am very curious if you learned more about the game after our last exchange.

What makes the 3 more valuable is it gets you more points per possession than a 2. While KD's long range shots won't equate to as much they would with a 3pt line, KD is still hitting those long 2s at a much better % than the 60s guys are hitting other shots. That means you have to guard him out there as a priority.

It won't warp things as much as 3pt shots would, but it's game breaking nonetheless. Nobody was coming off screens from 20 feet away and hitting night incontestable shots at that sort of percentage then. The whole reason the paint is congested back then is because that's where the highest efficiency shots are coming from. If there's now a guy who can be even more efficient from deep, it changes everything. You have to send guys (plural) to the perimeter, because he's not just going to be taking g isos, you have to chase him as he runs around screens too, and fires off instant release deathshots.

It's wild that you don't know this, yet are taking shots about me needing to 'learn the game more'.

So you genuinely believe that Durant would be hitting long range shots at better efficiency than 1960s players converted rim attempts?

I actually didn't say that, but let's come back to it.

If we take a year like 1965, the average FG% was 426. That's lower than what KD shoots between 16 feet and the 3pt line. His career average is 457. from that distance, and some years it is much higher. He has 8 seasons where he hits from that range between 529 and 583.

Now, that is deadly enough, just when you compare it to the league average FG% of 429. I don't need to prove he'd hit from out there at a higher rate than rim shots to prove my point; just the fact that he's hitting above league average from out there is enough.

That said; it's very possible Durant would be hitting long range 2s at a higher % than shots within say a 5 foot radius. We can't be sure, because shooting splits for that era don't exist, but I would strongly suspect that to be the case. Firstly, you can bump up KDs % a fair bit because a) the quality of the average player guarding him is worse, and b) because he's going to take a more optimal shot diet to reflect the different environment.

The majority of shots at that time came relatively close to the basket, so I'm not sure the average shooting % within around 5 feet would be that much higher than the league average FG% of 426. It'd be higher, but higher than Durant's improved midrange %? I tend to doubt it. Of course, if you mean 'will be hit at a higher rate than uncontested lay-ups' then the answer is no, but with the paint clogged the way it was relatively few shots were uncontested back then, except on a fast break or steal, etc.

Wilt's career FG% is 540. It's very likely that KD is going to have alot of years where he's scoring more efficiently than that from long range twos. That is obviously going to break the game.

[The Explorer]

The environment was less challenging in most respects. The players were worse, especially the ones they were defending.

Why are you giving Durant abilities he didn't have again in your hypothetical fantasy? Durant never had the ability to handle racism with thick skin. Durant never had the ability to play professional basketball at a low wage. Durant never had the ability to play basketball at a high level in Chuck Taylors or PF Flyers.

[One_and_Done]

The environment was less challenging in most respects. The players were worse, especially the ones they were defending.

Why are you giving Durant abilities he didn't have again in your hypothetical fantasy? Durant never had the ability to handle racism with thick skin. Durant never had the ability to play professional basketball at a low wage. Durant never had the ability to play basketball at a high level in Chuck Taylors or PF Flyers.

Only his basketball abilities are relevant here, not hypothetical timelines where he has a different personality.

It's also silly to compare a player developing a whole new skill to a player wearing a different shoe. We never saw Durant play with a hyper green headband either, but I don't need to see it because anyone can do that.

[Top10alltime]

1. Dirk literally got voted ahead of Durant in our peaks project recently.
2. You state your opinions (which are defensible, but often controversial) as facts and then you use them as the premises to your conclusions. All it takes is to disagree with the premises, which isn't that hard.
3. Calling West a mid defender in comparison to Durant is strange.

1. KD is still better. Do you think I'm listening to lunatics, mentally unwell clowns, like this guy below? Yeah, definitely not, what a joke . Even KcKtiny is better than this man

1. Kevin Garnett is obnoxiously overrated. Started off his career with 7 consecutive 1st round exits. 13-13 in playoff series for his career and 71-73 in playoff games overall. Finished in the top 10 in blocked shots just once in his entire career. Had no pet move unless you consider a 15 foot jumper a pet move. Was not a floor raiser and couldn’t carry a team in the postseason because he was offensively inept. Never scored above 40 in a playoff game and only scored 30+ nine times in 144 games. Lots of RealGM’ers have him in their top 10 all time

2. Kobe Bryant owes his place in history to nothing more than good luck. If he never got traded on draft day and spent his entire career in Charlotte, his career would mirror guys like George Gervin, Dominique Wilkins, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady and others who racked up tons of points and highlights but nothing else. He was lucky to play with prime Shaq for his first 3 rings. Any hyper athletic SG would have won rings with Shaq at the time. Young Shaq took Penny to the Finals and old Shaq took Wade to the Finals. Prime Shaq would have taken Vince, Tracy, Iverson etc to the Finals as well. Kobe was just along for the ride at the time. He was also lucky to inherit Phil Jackson when he was already established with his 6 rings from Chicago and was super fortunate to get Pau Gasol to enable him to win two more rings after Shaq’s departure. Kobe without Shaq or Pau was basically a taller Allen Iverson; a great scorer on horrific efficiency. Kobe got lucky.

3. Phil Jackson is overrated. Phil inherited Jordan and Pippen and then Shaq and Kobe and finally Kobe and Pau. Any coach would win with that talent. His zen master bullsh-t would’ve made no difference if his first coaching gig was in Sacramento or Washington or Atlanta. He would have struggled for a few years, gotten fired and would have never been heard from again. His entire career and all of his success is based on good timing and loaded rosters.

4. Reggie Miller is not a top 75 all time guy. Made three All NBA Third Teams in a 18 year career. That means he was never considered a top 10 player in any season in his career. How can you be a top 75 player ever when you were never even a top 10 player for one year in your own time? Dude couldn’t rebound, couldn’t put the ball on the floor, didn’t create offense for anybody and needed to run off of a million screens just to get contested 20 footers. Never even won a 3-point contest despite competing numerous times. Give him credit for being a great 3-point shooter and great FT shooter and for making some memorable shots but never made the Finals until Jordan retired and when he did he lost. Historically overrated. He wasn’t even as good as guys like Paul Westphal, Dale Ellis, Latrell Sprewell, Walter Davis, Jeff Malone, Fat Lever or Mitch Richmond.

2. It's controversial, because almost everyone follows casual narrative, but not me.

3. KD is better than West at off-ball defense, screen navigation, versatility, rim protection, and recovery, which lifted floor/ceiling of team far more than Jerry West did. If you're going to make any case for West, it's going to be his offense which he's not better than CP3 at.

I didn't know that HairJordan participated in our project and I moderate the project.

So you genuinely believe that Durant was better at screen navigation than Jerry West?

1. There are people like him on RealGM
2. Yes, I do, prove me otherwise

[tsherkin]

It's also silly to compare a player developing a whole new skill to a player wearing a different shoe. We never saw Durant play with a hyper green headband either, but I don't need to see it because anyone can do that.

One of them is cosmetic. The other is very relevant to durability of ankles, ability to gain purchase on the floor for aggressive change-of-direction moves and on the impact of running on development of shin splints and lower back problems.

So yeah, they're considerably more relevant thana headband.

[One_and_Done]

It's also silly to compare a player developing a whole new skill to a player wearing a different shoe. We never saw Durant play with a hyper green headband either, but I don't need to see it because anyone can do that.

One of them is cosmetic. The other is very relevant to durability of ankles, ability to gain purchase on the floor for aggressive change-of-direction moves and on the impact of running on development of shin splints and lower back problems.

So yeah, they're considerably more relevant thana headband.

I don't mind giving a tiny boost to players based on enhanced shoes, better offseason preparation using modern concepts, etc, but it's not moving the needle anywhere near enough here.

[tsherkin]

I don't mind giving a tiny boost to players based on enhanced shoes, better offseason preparation using modern concepts, etc, but it's not moving the needle anywhere near enough here.

Stiffer rims, different court surface, different shoes, different medical, different travel arrangements. No 3pt line, no defensive 3-second rule. VERY different enforcement of ball-handling rules. Most of what KD does on almost every possession would be illegal.

There is a fairly large library of differences in the details of how players were supported, the equipment used, and the basic rules of the game across the time span we're discussing here.

[One_and_Done]

Jerry West fans can feel he is unfairly punished for playing in an era without bad shoes, while potential players from the 40s can feel Jerry West's generation benefitted unfairly from having polio vaccines.

West also benefitted alot from the barely professional, somewhat desegregated league he played in too, but ultimately I'm looking at how good people were at basketball, not what was 'fairest'.

[tsherkin]

West also benefitted alot from the barely professional, somewhat desegregated league he played in too, but ultimately I'm looking at how good people were at basketball, not what was 'fairest'.

A convenient excuse. Context still matters. West's shooting ability was evident. His size and athleticism were also strong. He was limited in a wide variety of ways which contemporary players are not, though, and that makes direct evaluation difficult. Failing to acknowledge that is non-sensical at best, and actively disingenuous at worst...

[Calvin Klein]

I'll take the obsessive competitor over the miserable insecure snake.

[One_and_Done]

West also benefitted alot from the barely professional, somewhat desegregated league he played in too, but ultimately I'm looking at how good people were at basketball, not what was 'fairest'.

A convenient excuse. Context still matters. West's shooting ability was evident. His size and athleticism were also strong. He was limited in a wide variety of ways which contemporary players are not, though, and that makes direct evaluation difficult. Failing to acknowledge that is non-sensical at best, and actively disingenuous at worst...

We can acknowledge Bill Walton would be rated much higher if he wasn't injured, but we can also only rate him on what actually happened. Whether it was 'fair' is irrelevant. It's not fair that Wilt was over 7 feet, while other guys are born 5-4.

[tsherkin]

We can acknowledge Bill Walton would be rated much higher if he wasn't injured, but we can also only rate him on what actually happened. Whether it was 'fair' is irrelevant. It's not fair that Wilt was over 7 feet, while other guys are born 5-4.

When discussing ability, this is less material. If you're talking complete value to franchise, then health becomes more a consideration, though it's worth at least wondering what 50+ years of difference in medicine might do for such an individual. And how changes to the game might affect someone like, say, West. When you're talking about as many different things as we are with West, ignoring them would be a malignant approach to the discussion.

[One_and_Done]

We can acknowledge Bill Walton would be rated much higher if he wasn't injured, but we can also only rate him on what actually happened. Whether it was 'fair' is irrelevant. It's not fair that Wilt was over 7 feet, while other guys are born 5-4.

When discussing ability, this is less material. If you're talking complete value to franchise, then health becomes more a consideration, though it's worth at least wondering what 50+ years of difference in medicine might do for such an individual. And how changes to the game might affect someone like, say, West. When you're talking about as many different things as we are with West, ignoring them would be a malignant approach to the discussion.

My position on this is very clear. We should rate players based on what actually happened, in particular the skillset they actually possessed. If you want to discuss a player who actually existed, with his existing skillset, being placed in a different situation (or given better shoes, and having his existing skill set used more optimally) that’s reasonable. We engage in speculation like that every time we consider if a trade would be good, or who a team should draft.

All this stuff about alternative timelines, and what a player would have grown up to be like if circumstances had been different, is just too speculative. Once you go down that road, rating players becomes almost meaningless, because I can rate Shaq if he learned to shoot FTs, or Duncan if he had grown up learning to shoot 3s, or Sheed if he had a better attitude, or Bill Walton with modern medicine, or Len Bias if he lived. It’s just too speculative. It’s like asking how we’d rate a player if he didn’t hit as many shots, and his team lost more. Like, that’s not what actually happened. He did hit a lot of shots in those clutch games, and his team won as a result.

West’s actual skillset is not going to make him a star today, and a pair of new shoes isn’t changing that.