Jerry West vs Kevin Durant

[tsherkin]

My position on this is very clear.

Clear? Absolutely.

The problem with your argument isn't clarity, it's utility. You ignore too much relevant information to advance arguments of value when you engage in these cross-era discussions. You cannot handwave stuff away as if it isn't relevant when it directly impacts the nature of player ability and achievement.

We should rate players based on what actually happened, in particular the skillset they actually possessed.

Ultimately, however, this is a heavily-flawed approach when you are comparing guys who played in very distant eras.

[eminence]

Neither of these guys could hack it pre-dribbling.

William Chase, now there's a guy who could play *real* basketball.

[One_and_Done]

My position on this is very clear.

Clear? Absolutely.

The problem with your argument isn't clarity, it's utility. You ignore too much relevant information to advance arguments of value when you engage in these cross-era discussions. You cannot handwave stuff away as if it isn't relevant when it directly impacts the nature of player ability and achievement.

We should rate players based on what actually happened, in particular the skillset they actually possessed.

Ultimately, however, this is a heavily-flawed approach when you are comparing guys who played in very distant eras.

That's like saying 'it's a flawed approach' to recognise the reality that Alexander the Great's armies couldn't beat the armies of Napoleon, or that steel is harder than bronze. That's just objective reality. We all understand the context for those things, and you are still free to argue that Alexander was better 'in the context' in which he generalled, or that his military mind was superior. You can make all those claims; what you can't sensibly argue is that his actual armies that existed could have won.

Everyone understands the context. West grew up in an borderline amateur sport, and played in a very undeveloped league. If we were to ask who was better in their era, or who had a greater impact on the game, the answer might well be West. In terms of who was the better player though, it's clearly Durant.

[tsherkin]

That's like saying 'it's a flawed approach' to recognise the reality that Alexander the Great's armies couldn't beat the armies of Napoleon, or that steel is harder than bronze.

No, in fact it is quite different than that. It is your assumption that Jerry West, for example, was too stupid to develop the ball handling we see in the NBA today while permitted to break all the rules which governed his ball-handling the NBA of his day. Which is non-sensical, given the average way ball-handling is employed by star guards with a respected jumper in the contemporary NBA. But that's one of the many arguments you attempt to advance here. You hide that behind "ah, but players and their actual skillsets" without addressing the issues at hand which limited guys from developing, so that you can piss all over the older players, and honestly, it's an extremely fatiguing approach which really doesn't do anything to stimulate quality conversation.

[One_and_Done]

That's like saying 'it's a flawed approach' to recognise the reality that Alexander the Great's armies couldn't beat the armies of Napoleon, or that steel is harder than bronze.

No, in fact it is quite different than that. It is your assumption that Jerry West, for example, was too stupid to develop the ball handling we see in the NBA today while permitted to break all the rules which governed his ball-handling the NBA of his day. Which is non-sensical, given the average way ball-handling is employed by star guards with a respected jumper in the contemporary NBA. But that's one of the many arguments you attempt to advance here. You hide that behind "ah, but players and their actual skillsets" without addressing the issues at hand which limited guys from developing, so that you can piss all over the older players, and honestly, it's an extremely fatiguing approach which really doesn't do anything to stimulate quality conversation.

Maybe if they'd been born today, with a different culture, knowledge, upbringing, etc, and different training and different weapons, then Alexander the Great's armies could beat modern armies... but then they'd no longer be the armies of Alexander, they'd be armies that only exist in our imagination.

I prefer to rate players who actually existed, not imaginary ones. It has nothing to do with how smart or dumb West was, it's about the skillset he possessed. Intelligence and skill development don't go hand in hand either. Kyrie strikes me as a moron, yet he's incredibly skilled. Meanwhile Sochan seems like a thoughtful and cultured guy, but he still can't shoot.

If you want to circle back to more stimulating and constructive analysis, my suggestion would be that instead of only discussing why you hate my criteria, you could focus on how West would look if you did put him into today's game with the actual skillset he had. Or just discuss their respective impacts in their own era. I'm obviously not changing my criteria, so I don't see the point in debating it further.

[tsherkin]

Maybe if they'd been born today, with a different culture, knowledge, upbringing, etc, and different training and different weapons, then Alexander the Great's armies could beat modern armies... but then they'd no longer be the armies of Alexander, they'd be armies that only exist in our imagination.

Sure, but the gap between the technology and tools available to Alexander and now is a very different discussion compared to basketball development.

I prefer to rate players who actually existed, not imaginary ones.

You repeat this endlessly, but it isn't helpful. If you're discussing players, you can't advantage one guy with all of the developments from his own time while disadvantaging the guy who didn't have them.

If you want to circle back to more stimulating and constructive analysis, my suggestion would be that instead of only discussing why you hate my criteria, you could focus on how West would look if you did put him into today's game with the actual skillset he had.

The problem with that, of course, is that it isn't an intelligent approach. Everything would change for him. He'd be taking advantage of all the myriad benefits, which would notably impact his game. It's inescapable.

Or just discuss their respective impacts in their own era.

That is about the only sensible way to come at cross-era comparison. On at least that, we agree. There's simply too much distance to look at them through any other lens. And it's especially valuable to do so without all of the layered invective you heap on the earlier eras, because that's exhausting and disrespectful.

[One_and_Done]

Maybe if they'd been born today, with a different culture, knowledge, upbringing, etc, and different training and different weapons, then Alexander the Great's armies could beat modern armies... but then they'd no longer be the armies of Alexander, they'd be armies that only exist in our imagination.

Sure, but the gap between the technology and tools available to Alexander and now is a very different discussion compared to basketball development.

I prefer to rate players who actually existed, not imaginary ones.

You repeat this endlessly, but it isn't helpful. If you're discussing players, you can't advantage one guy with all of the developments from his own time while disadvantaging the guy who didn't have them.

If you want to circle back to more stimulating and constructive analysis, my suggestion would be that instead of only discussing why you hate my criteria, you could focus on how West would look if you did put him into today's game with the actual skillset he had.

The problem with that, of course, is that it isn't an intelligent approach. Everything would change for him. He'd be taking advantage of all the myriad benefits, which would notably impact his game. It's inescapable.

Or just discuss their respective impacts in their own era.

That is about the only sensible way to come at cross-era comparison. On at least that, we agree. There's simply too much distance to look at them through any other lens. And it's especially valuable to do so without all of the layered invective you heap on the earlier eras, because that's exhausting and disrespectful.

No, I don't agree that is a sensible approach, I'm just recommending maybe you focus your attention there, rather than constantly railing against my criteria as 'exhausting and disrespectful', because I feel the same way about other people's criteria, which seem to be extremely inconsistent, illogical, and selectively invoked to push for players they subjectively like. I don't see many (or really any) 'era relativists' with Mikan in their top 5, yet clearly he would have to be if that's your criteria.

My approach is much more 'intelligent' than other approaches I'd say. It's also a very 'helpful' approach, it just doesn't help guys who were worse at playing basketball.

[tsherkin]

No, I don't agree that is a sensible approach, I'm just recommending maybe you focus your attention there, rather than constantly railing against my criteria as 'exhausting and disrespectful', because I feel the same way about other people's criteria, which seem to be extremely inconsistent, illogical, and selectively invoked to push for players they subjectively like. I don't see many (or really any) 'era relativists' with Mikan in their top 5, yet clearly he would have to be if that's your criteria.

Yes, Mikan should generally be ranked higher than he is for precisely that reason. He is as well-awarded as anyone else in league history, he was historically dominant, he forced the league to change the rules, he won a bunch of titles... I think he's more forgotten than anything else in many cases. But he absolutely should be spoken of more highly. Do I think he specifically would fare well moving forward? No, but forward port shouldn't really be the be-all, end-all of discussion because the league is always advancing and changing. There are definitely challenges in examining a situation like his because, there are plenty of differences in his league compared to West's league and compared to today's league, sure. But a player can only compete in the league in which they played.

My approach is much more 'intelligent' than other approaches thanks.

It really isn't. Which for me is surprising, because you are a fairly erudite individual. When you ignore as much relevant information as you do with this approach, though, it cannot be considered a useful angle of examination. You toss away so much and then basically say "but that league sucked, so none of their successes really count/compare," and that's not valid analysis any more so than saying "bahhhhh, West would shoot 40% on 11 3PA/g because he had such range" and all that level of extreme regard for the older guys.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm out. Carry on.

[One_and_Done]

We disagree on the best way to evaluate players. I rate them on the skillset they actually had, other people seem to want to rate imaginary players who never existed.

It's also not just about today's league, though the modern game where the talent and playstyle is at its apex and so is the most important, the same question can also be posed for the bulk of NBA history. Because 3 pt shooting has existed for most of league history too. Modern dribbling also has more in common with how the game was played in the 80s than the late 60s, notwithstanding that far more time has passed compared to the 60s.

A bronze shield only had to stand up to other bronze weapons in the Bronze Age. It doesn't follow that it would hold up against steel, just because it was good 'in era'.

[70sFan]

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.

So, I come back to just show how off you are in your estimations.

It's true that we don't have the shooting data for the 1960s. What we do have is a shooting database created by trex:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1991991

He tracked shooting data for the available games from 1950-72 period. The sample contains over 5000 FGA, which is almost full season of data. This is how the splits look for the sample:

Spoiler:

Efficiency:

Overall: 44.7%
0-3: 63.2%
3-10: 38.4%
10-16: 40.6%
16-3P: 37.4%
3P: 29.6%

Volume:

0-3: 25.5%
3-10: 16.6%
10-16: 23.5%
16-3P: 32.5%
3P: 1.9%

If you compare these numbers to 2000/01 season, the data looks remarkably similar:

Spoiler:

Efficiency:

Overall: 44.3%
0-3: 61.9%
3-10: 35.9%
10-16: 38.5%
16-3P: 40.0%
3P: 35.4%

Volume:

0-3: 27.3%
3-10: 16.8%
10-16: 15.8%
16-3P: 23.2%
3P: 17.0%

You assumed that the majority of shots back then were taken inside the paint, but that's simply incorrect. Worse spacing meant more clogged paints and less rim attempts. Players were forced to create out of midrange in the halfcourt. What just happened is that players took significantly more long range midrange shots instead of three pointers that didn't exist.

The overall efficiency is basically identical to the league average from 1960-72 period. Rim shots were converted at above 60%. Of course, we can discuss the validity of the sample and some noise in the hand-tracked stats, but it's highly unlikely that you'd get 10% drop off with more accurate data.

So no, Durant shooting midranges at 50% rate wouldn't destroy the league. It's very likely that players like Oscar and West were quite close to that efficiency from outside considering their shooting profile and overall efficiency and yes, they were absolutely great but they didn't break the game.

Of course there are other problems with your era translation guessing. We actually know that worse quality of balls have a visible influence on players shooting efficiency. When the league introduced improved balls in 1969, the league average FT% improved by 4 percentage points. We can also mention stiffer rims, worse shoes, colder arenas etc. Durant's shot diet also wouldn't be nearly as optimized, as coaches didn't have the same knowledge about the value of efficiency back then.

You don't take anything of that into account, you just assume none of that would influence Durant's shooting percentages and you even push for better numbers.

[70sFan]

2. Yes, I do, prove me otherwise

I can't prove that, cause it's impossible to do either way.

There are many evidences though, suggesting that West was extremely good screen navigator for his era, while we know that Durant wasn't even good at that in his own era. West is also considerably quicker, generally had better physical tools to defend screens and had better defensive instincts, so it should be worth something in such conversation.

[The Master]

Some weird takes in this thread. They're both fantastic scorerers but West has better playmaking skills, plays better defense, is more clutch and is a better leader. West is the logo, does anybody think KD should be the logo? Come on.

Yeah, it's hard to ignore West leading the league in assists in Lakers' championship year while being a prominent scorer as well on one of the best teams of all-time and elite offensive team for its era, considering we've never seen KD actually doing the same besides glimpses here and there, especially including how strongly West scales as a scorer/off-ball player. Also, KD's track record as a playoff performer in non-Warriors environment is pretty underwhelming (2012 and 2021 as his best playoffs runs?). No advantage on the defensive side either.

Intuitively, I thought that perhaps longevity-wise, there's an argument for Durant considering he's still probably an all-star as a 38yo, but since 2019:

- many games missed, 3.5 WS and 2.4 VORP in the playoffs, with one strong playoff performance (2021),
- his first two years are not impactful,
- in the 10-19 period, he missed playoffs once (2015) and got injured in 2019 in the finals while his team advanced to them without him playing in the WCF.

It's still relatively close, but I'd lean towards West here.

[70sFan]

Some weird takes in this thread. They're both fantastic scorerers but West has better playmaking skills, plays better defense, is more clutch and is a better leader. West is the logo, does anybody think KD should be the logo? Come on.

Yeah, it's hard to ignore West leading the league in assists in Lakers' championship year while being a prominent scorer as well on one of the best teams of all-time and elite offensive team for its era, considering we've never seen KD actually doing the same besides glimpses here and there, especially including how strongly West scales as a scorer/off-ball player. Also, KD's track record as a playoff performer in non-Warriors environment is pretty underwhelming (2012 and 2021 as his best playoffs runs?). No advantage on the defensive side either.

Intuitively, I thought that perhaps longevity-wise, there's an argument for Durant considering he's still probably an all-star as a 38yo, but since 2019:

- many games missed, 3.5 WS and 2.4 VORP in the playoffs, with one strong playoff performance (2021),
- his first two years are not impactful,
- in the 10-19 period, he missed playoffs once (2015) and got injured in 2019 in the finals while his team advanced to them without him playing in the WCF.

It's still relatively close, but I'd lean towards West here.

Durant's longevity is one of the most overrated things in basketball discussions. It's remarkable how people rave at KD being superstar at such an advanced age when in reality, his last superstar-level season (counting availability) was in 2019.

[Top10alltime]

2. Yes, I do, prove me otherwise

I can't prove that, cause it's impossible to do either way.

There are many evidences though, suggesting that West was extremely good screen navigator for his era, while we know that Durant wasn't even good at that in his own era. West is also considerably quicker, generally had better physical tools to defend screens and had better defensive instincts, so it should be worth something in such conversation.

Watch on YouTube

[The Master]

Durant's longevity is one of the most overrated things in basketball discussions. It's remarkable how people rave at KD being superstar at such an advanced age when in reality, his last superstar-level season (counting availability) was in 2019.

Probably not even 2019, he was injured in the 2nd round of the playoffs after all (and then 'more' injured in the finals), for a regular contending team it would've been the end of title dreams losing player of KD's statue in the middle of the postseason.

I guess 11x All-NBA teams and 12 postseasons with +2 BPM is probably 'expected' value from top20 players ever, this is basically Barkley/Robinson/CP3 output.

[theonlyclutch]

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.

So, I come back to just show how off you are in your estimations.

It's true that we don't have the shooting data for the 1960s. What we do have is a shooting database created by trex:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1991991

He tracked shooting data for the available games from 1950-72 period. The sample contains over 5000 FGA, which is almost full season of data. This is how the splits look for the sample:

Spoiler:

Efficiency:

Overall: 44.7%
0-3: 63.2%
3-10: 38.4%
10-16: 40.6%
16-3P: 37.4%
3P: 29.6%

Volume:

0-3: 25.5%
3-10: 16.6%
10-16: 23.5%
16-3P: 32.5%
3P: 1.9%

If you compare these numbers to 2000/01 season, the data looks remarkably similar:

Spoiler:

Efficiency:

Overall: 44.3%
0-3: 61.9%
3-10: 35.9%
10-16: 38.5%
16-3P: 40.0%
3P: 35.4%

Volume:

0-3: 27.3%
3-10: 16.8%
10-16: 15.8%
16-3P: 23.2%
3P: 17.0%

You assumed that the majority of shots back then were taken inside the paint, but that's simply incorrect. Worse spacing meant more clogged paints and less rim attempts. Players were forced to create out of midrange in the halfcourt. What just happened is that players took significantly more long range midrange shots instead of three pointers that didn't exist.

The overall efficiency is basically identical to the league average from 1960-72 period. Rim shots were converted at above 60%. Of course, we can discuss the validity of the sample and some noise in the hand-tracked stats, but it's highly unlikely that you'd get 10% drop off with more accurate data.

So no, Durant shooting midranges at 50% rate wouldn't destroy the league. It's very likely that players like Oscar and West were quite close to that efficiency from outside considering their shooting profile and overall efficiency and yes, they were absolutely great but they didn't break the game.

Of course there are other problems with your era translation guessing. We actually know that worse quality of balls have a visible influence on players shooting efficiency. When the league introduced improved balls in 1969, the league average FT% improved by 4 percentage points. We can also mention stiffer rims, worse shoes, colder arenas etc. Durant's shot diet also wouldn't be nearly as optimized, as coaches didn't have the same knowledge about the value of efficiency back then.

You don't take anything of that into account, you just assume none of that would influence Durant's shooting percentages and you even push for better numbers.

Showing overall efficiencies equivalent to the deadball era of basketball despite far faster paces and much less physicality allowed on D is not the argument you think it is.
Richard Hamilton was useful there running around shooting lots of low-40s midrange and doing nothing else well. Upgrade those midrange percentages to KDs and add KDs finishing prowess near the rim (being an extraordinarily co-ordinated and quick near-7-footer) and that's the archtype for a very, very valuable player with very little emphasis on dribbling or 3-pointers.

[penbeast0]

I don't think there's any question that Kevin Durant would be a great player in any era of basketball. Shouldn't be any question about Jerry West being a great player in any era except for the "plumbers and firemen" analysts. Any comp between these two has to start with acknowledgement that there were very special talents; then you get into the fine details of the comparison.

[70sFan]

Showing overall efficiencies equivalent to the deadball era of basketball despite far faster paces and much less physicality allowed on D is not the argument you think it is.

I think it does, because some people here believe that 1960s was some kind of trash era full of amateurs who couldn't score on the court.

Also, less physicality allowed also includes offensive players, which in the case of inside scoring discussion is extremely important.

Richard Hamilton was useful there running around shooting lots of low-40s midrange and doing nothing else well. Upgrade those midrange percentages to KDs and add KDs finishing prowess near the rim (being an extraordinarily co-ordinated and quick near-7-footer) and that's the archtype for a very, very valuable player with very little emphasis on dribbling or 3-pointers.

No disagreement here, I never said that KD wouldn't be very, very valuable player in the 1960s. He definitely would be.

[70sFan]

2. Yes, I do, prove me otherwise

I can't prove that, cause it's impossible to do either way.

There are many evidences though, suggesting that West was extremely good screen navigator for his era, while we know that Durant wasn't even good at that in his own era. West is also considerably quicker, generally had better physical tools to defend screens and had better defensive instincts, so it should be worth something in such conversation.

Watch on YouTube

You have an interesting habit of reacting with surprise on opinions that shouldn't be controversial at all.

What is so strange in my post? West was quicker, had a frame better suited to move around screens and quicker hands to disrupt P&R plays. I know that discussing players across 50 years is often very tricky, but in this case I don't think any of these takes are controversial at all.

[iggymcfrack]

I feel like era differences are often underplayed and I don't think that providing the same level of dominance in 2025 with players training from every corner of the globe should be treated the same as dominating a domestic league that wasn't that popular in the '60s. I think the near universal rating of Wilt in the top 10 is a failure to recognize this as he had a surprising lack of success despite every possible factor (ruleset, team composition, etc.) being set in his favor. But that should be based on player pool, not which skills were they practicing at the time.

When you get to the point of saying "oh well, this guy was an elite dribbler, but who knows if he could dribble with modern rules" or "this guy was an elite shooter, but who knows if he'd be able to do it practicing at a slightly different distance", that's beyond the pale to me. At that point, you might as well start treating Jordan as a spacing liability since he only shot the 3 effectively when they shortened the line. Of all the players from a previous era that would translate immediately, West has to be close to the top. Great shooter off the dribble, tremendous iso skills, excellent passer, and defender, he could pretty much do it all.

I was watching the Lakers/Wolves game last night and they were saying how Reaves was the first Laker to start the season with 25 points and 5 assists in each of his first 5 games since Jerry West. It really got me thinking. Back when white superstars seemed to be going extinct in the NBA, it was easy to look back at Jerry West and say "meh, what would this short skinny white guy be able to do today?" But now, after seeing a new generation of smaller white guys who aren't super athletic looking take over, I think it's time to re-evaluate those priors. The best perimeter defender of all-time on a statistical basis is a short white guy. Imagine a player who had the kind of scoring and passing chops to consistently play like Reaves' current hot level offensively, while also having some of Caruso's pit bull defense on the other end. Can you imagine how dominant such a player could be today? I think West would absolutely be incredibly impactful today, and I feel like he'd have to be more valuable than KD's one dimensional scoring.