Highest reasonable all-time ranking for Kevin Durant?

[Dutchball97]

I think you could argue him as high as 12th or 13th, although that would require a lot of benefit of the doubt. I personally have him closer to 20.

[70sFan]

I think you could argue him as high as 12th or 13th, although that would require a lot of benefit of the doubt. I personally have him closer to 20.

What criteria do you think would put him that high?

[Dutchball97]

I think you could argue him as high as 12th or 13th, although that would require a lot of benefit of the doubt. I personally have him closer to 20.

What criteria do you think would put him that high?

I think his career compares pretty decently to Kobe and West, who I both have around that range. Much has been made of KD's longevity but he has played as many games as West and isn't done yet, he won't be remembered as a longevity titan but surely not as someone with a short career either. Kobe still has a longevity advantage but that also looks bigger than it is due to Kobe not adding much in his last few years and even his first few as well. For peaks I don't think there is much inbetween them either.

Obviously you can't be too much of a longevity/career value guy because then you're going to have a hard time putting KD over guys like Dirk and Malone.

If you're someone who primarily uses +- and don't care too much about play-off success your're never going to be able to argue KD over KG and Oscar.

That's why I added I'd personally have a hard time seeing KD all the way up at 12th or 13th because it requires giving him the advantage in multiple kinds of criteria but if that's the exact type of career you're looking for I don't see why he couldn't make it into the top 15. I mean many people now have Curry in their top 15 and I'm still not entitely convinced Curry deserves to be above KD.

[lessthanjake]

The highest KD could go would be 12th. There’s 11 guys who clearly have a resume that is superior to him. Specifically, in no particular order: Shaq, Kobe, Curry, LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Magic, Bird, and Duncan. After those guys, you get to the realm of guys with things like 2 MVPs and 1 title or 1 MVP and 2 titles. Durant is in that tier of achievement, and so there’s probably an argument to have him anywhere within that tier. If you put him at the top of that tier, he’d be at 12th all-time. But there’s a handful of other guys in that tier, and so if you put him near the bottom of it, he’s probably more like 20th or so. I think a lot of people would put him closer to the bottom of the tier, because fans tend to value his titles a good deal less than other players’ titles. I’d probably put him somewhere in the 16th-20th range (not sure exactly where). But I do think a charitable view of him (combined perhaps with an uncharitable view of some other guys) could put him at 12th.

[No-more-rings]

The highest KD could go would be 12th. There’s 11 guys who clearly have a resume that is superior to him. Specifically, in no particular order: Shaq, Kobe, Curry, LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Magic, Bird, and Duncan. After those guys, you get to the realm of guys with things like 2 MVPs and 1 title or 1 MVP and 2 titles. Durant is in that tier of achievement, and so there’s probably an argument to have him anywhere within that tier. If you put him at the top of that tier, he’d be at 12th all-time. But there’s a handful of other guys in that tier, and so if you put him near the bottom of it, he’s probably more like 20th or so. I think a lot of people would put him closer to the bottom of the tier, because fans tend to value his titles a good deal less than other players’ titles. I’d probably put him somewhere in the 16th-20th range (not sure exactly where). But I do think a charitable view of him (combined perhaps with an uncharitable view of some other guys) could put him at 12th.

Durant has no reasonable case over Hakeem imo.

[Mikeball]

Top 10 if you dont count the older players pre the merger.

If you start counting at Magic and Bird (Which most peole do) then top 10 is reasonable

[lessthanjake]

The highest KD could go would be 12th. There’s 11 guys who clearly have a resume that is superior to him. Specifically, in no particular order: Shaq, Kobe, Curry, LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Magic, Bird, and Duncan. After those guys, you get to the realm of guys with things like 2 MVPs and 1 title or 1 MVP and 2 titles. Durant is in that tier of achievement, and so there’s probably an argument to have him anywhere within that tier. If you put him at the top of that tier, he’d be at 12th all-time. But there’s a handful of other guys in that tier, and so if you put him near the bottom of it, he’s probably more like 20th or so. I think a lot of people would put him closer to the bottom of the tier, because fans tend to value his titles a good deal less than other players’ titles. I’d probably put him somewhere in the 16th-20th range (not sure exactly where). But I do think a charitable view of him (combined perhaps with an uncharitable view of some other guys) could put him at 12th.

Durant has no reasonable case over Hakeem imo.

I put Hakeem over Durant, but I disagree that there’s no reasonable case for Durant. Just at a very basic level, both players have 2 titles and 1 finals loss, 2 Finals MVPs, 1 regular season MVP, and virtually identical all-NBA selections, so these just can’t be two players in a completely different stratosphere. Indeed, Durant actually has a higher total MVP vote share (3.21 vs. 2.61). On its face, it seems like a pretty obviously debatable duo of players, since their resumes are really similar. And people forget that for a large portion of Hakeem’s career, the teams he was leading barely made the playoffs (or even missed the playoffs) and would typically lose to pretty unremarkable teams in the playoffs (though they did have a fairly flukey run the finals in 1986—definitely a credit to Hakeem), even when Hakeem had been totally healthy. Of course, he didn’t have the supporting casts Durant has had (though Ralph Sampson was really good, and he later got Drexler and then Barkley and even Pippen), so it’s not an apples to apples comparison. But the fact remains that Hakeem wasn’t a consistent title contender throughout his career in the same way that Durant has been. Hakeem was a clearly superior defensive player, but Durant is a clearly superior offensive player. All that said, again, I’d take Hakeem over Durant. And that’s mostly because I think Hakeem’s titles are on the high end of impressiveness while Durant’s are on the low end. But I don’t think it can be right to say Durant has no reasonable case over Hakeem when their career resumes are actually really really similar.

[AEnigma]

The highest KD could go would be 12th. There’s 11 guys who clearly have a resume that is superior to him. Specifically, in no particular order: Shaq, Kobe, Curry, LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Magic, Bird, and Duncan. After those guys, you get to the realm of guys with things like 2 MVPs and 1 title or 1 MVP and 2 titles. Durant is in that tier of achievement, and so there’s probably an argument to have him anywhere within that tier. If you put him at the top of that tier, he’d be at 12th all-time. But there’s a handful of other guys in that tier, and so if you put him near the bottom of it, he’s probably more like 20th or so. I think a lot of people would put him closer to the bottom of the tier, because fans tend to value his titles a good deal less than other players’ titles. I’d probably put him somewhere in the 16th-20th range (not sure exactly where). But I do think a charitable view of him (combined perhaps with an uncharitable view of some other guys) could put him at 12th.

Durant has no reasonable case over Hakeem imo.

I put Hakeem over Durant, but I disagree that there’s no reasonable case. Just at a very basic level, both players have 2 titles and 1 finals loss, 2 Finals MVPs, 1 regular season MVP, and virtually identical all-NBA selections, so these just can’t be two players in a completely different stratosphere.

They can be when Durant’s two titles came as the second star on the greatest roster in the history of the sport, while Hakeem’s two title casts were among the all-time weakest for a championship team.

Indeed, Durant actually has a higher total MVP vote share (3.21 vs. 2.61). On its face, it seems like a pretty obviously debatable duo of players, since their resumes are really similar. And people forget that for a large portion of Hakeem’s career, the teams he was leading barely made the playoffs or even missed the playoffs and would typically lose to pretty unremarkable teams in the playoffs (though they did have a fairly flukey run the finals in 1986—definitely a credit to Hakeem), even when Hakeem was totally healthy. Of course, he didn’t have the supporting casts Durant has had

All-time undersell.

How many losses does Durant have where he produced like Hakeem did in 1987 and 1988? What team has Durant beaten while disadvantaged to the extent of Hakeem against the 1986 Lakers? You call it a fluke, but Hakeem regularly beat better teams. Durant did that, what, twice? And that was with much more talented rosters.

(though Ralph Sampson was really good)

In college. The fact Hakeem did not have a better teammate than NBA Sampson until 1995, yet won a title anyway, is why there is no actual comparison here. Durant has never gone anywhere in the postseason without superstar guard play.

so it’s not an apples to apples comparison. But the fact remains that Hakeem wasn’t a consistent title contender throughout his career in the same way that Durant has been. Again, I’d take Hakeem over Durant. And that’s mostly because I think Hakeem’s titles are on the high end of impressiveness while Durant’s are on the low end. But I don’t think it can be right to say Durant has no reasonable case over Hakeem when their career resumes are actually really really similar.

If they are only similar in a wholly superficial sense, then no, it is not a reasonable case. This is literally a ringzzzz argument. Shame on Hakeem for only winning two titles with Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell, that to me is minimally different from winning as a free agent addition to a 73-win team.

[70sFan]

Top 10 if you dont count the older players pre the merger.

If you start counting at Magic and Bird (Which most peole do) then top 10 is reasonable

Why is it reasonable to start counting at Magic and Bird?

[Mikeball]

Top 10 if you dont count the older players pre the merger.

If you start counting at Magic and Bird (Which most peole do) then top 10 is reasonable

Why is it reasonable to start counting at Magic and Bird?

That was shortly after the NBA/ABA merged.

Most fans consider anything pre this as pre modern NBA

In fact I was reading that most considered Larry Bird as the greatest player ever even starting as early as 1986.

Basically even back then they considered the older era of the NBA fake

[iggymcfrack]

19-20

This is how I feel. I know a lot of people place him higher than that, but I don’t really see the argument. Even in his own era, he was rarely a top 5 player.

[lessthanjake]

Durant has no reasonable case over Hakeem imo.

I put Hakeem over Durant, but I disagree that there’s no reasonable case. Just at a very basic level, both players have 2 titles and 1 finals loss, 2 Finals MVPs, 1 regular season MVP, and virtually identical all-NBA selections, so these just can’t be two players in a completely different stratosphere.

They can be when Durant’s two titles came as the second star on the greatest roster in the history of the sport, while Hakeem’s two title casts were among the all-time weakest for a championship team.

To some extent I obviously agree with you, since I said this is part of why I have Hakeem above Durant. But there are reasonable ways of looking at this that are much more charitable to Durant.

For instance, Durant is not the only person to be on a stacked super team. For example, LeBron’s Miami team was no less talented IMO (indeed, LeBron himself thought they’d just easily rattle off 7 titles, because of how talented they were). Neither was the Moses Malone Sixers. Or the Showtime Lakers, etc. And yet none of the stacked teams in history have ever been as dominant as those Warriors teams were. A charitable reading of that to Durant would be to conclude that this is because he’s an all-time ceiling raiser player—which would be a huge deal. Of course, the counter to that would be that he didn’t have to raise the ceiling much because the Warriors had already gone 73-9. But we obviously have to recognize that, despite that record, they were not even necessarily the best team in the league—as demonstrated by not having won the title and having had serious difficulty even making the finals. A charitable reading of Durant would also recognize that a huge portion of what made those pre-Durant Warriors quite so successful was that they were extracting the benefits of being significantly ahead of other teams tactically—employing much more of today’s three-ball offense than other teams were, in a way that gave them a huge tactical advantage. That was an advantage that would obviously naturally go away fairly quickly, as other teams quickly adapted to mimic the Warriors’ superior offensive tactics as much as possible. Indeed, the number of threes taken immediately went up a lot after 2016, as did offensive efficiency. The Warriors’ tactical advantage was going away, so there’s reason to believe that the Warriors’ success would’ve diminished a good bit if they’d not gotten Durant. In other words, perhaps the Warriors were a 73-9 team that didn’t win the finals and were likely to be on the decline (due to losing their tactical advantage) with no chance of being anything close to a 73-9 team again. Which would make their utter dominance with Durant more impressive.

Meanwhile, the charitable reading of this comparison for Durant would be that Hakeem’s titles came in an artificially way weakened league, because Jordan was temporarily gone (yes, I know Jordan was technically back in 1995, but not really). The idea would be that he was just the lucky beneficiary of the league’s clear best team going into hibernation. I think the Rockets’ runs were still difficult (they faced some good teams!), and so I still put a lot of value on Hakeem’s titles, but it wouldn’t be totally unreasonable to somewhat discount titles won where the clear dominant player/team randomly took itself off the board for a couple years.

Indeed, Durant actually has a higher total MVP vote share (3.21 vs. 2.61). On its face, it seems like a pretty obviously debatable duo of players, since their resumes are really similar. And people forget that for a large portion of Hakeem’s career, the teams he was leading barely made the playoffs or even missed the playoffs and would typically lose to pretty unremarkable teams in the playoffs (though they did have a fairly flukey run the finals in 1986—definitely a credit to Hakeem), even when Hakeem was totally healthy. Of course, he didn’t have the supporting casts Durant has had

All-time undersell.

How many losses does Durant have where he produced like Hakeem did in 1987 and 1988? What team has Durant beaten while disadvantaged to the extent of Hakeem against the 1986 Lakers? You call it a fluke, but Hakeem regularly beat better teams. Durant did that, what, twice? And that was with much more talented rosters.

Durant has had great series’ where he lost. Take, for instance, a very prominent example of the 2012 Finals, where Durant put up 31 points a game on 65% TS% in the finals. And that’s against a WAY better team than the 1987 SuperSonics and the 1988 Mavericks.

In terms of beating a team while disadvantaged, I’d say beating the 2016 Spurs qualifies very highly. That Spurs team had won 67 games and actually had an essentially equal SRS to the 73-9 Warriors (10.38 vs. 10.28). The only teams in the last 50 years with as high a SRS as the 2016 Spurs were the 2017 Warriors, 2016 Warriors, 1997 Bulls, and 1996 Bulls. They were genuinely an all-time great team. And they were healthy. But Durant led his team to victory in 6 games, despite his co-star actually having a bad series. It’s certainly quite possible to argue that that’s as or more impressive than beating the 1986 Lakers, who were great but had an SRS of 6.84.

And it’s worth going over the types of teams each of these players has lost to in the playoffs. The teams Hakeem lost to in the playoffs include: (1) the 41-41 1985 Jazz led by Adrian Dantley; (2) the 39-43 1987 SuperSonics led by Tom Chambers; (3) the 53-29 1988 Mavericks led by Mark Aguirre (this team was actually pretty solid though); (4) the 47-35 1989 SuperSonics led by Dale Ellis; and (5) no one in 1992 because the Rockets didn’t make the playoffs. They also lost to the 1990 and 1991 Lakers, which was of course a great team, but they lost to them in the first round because the Rockets were only the 8th seed and 6th seed, and the series’ weren’t close. Hakeem’s first 8 seasons in the NBA were actually pretty rough, aside from the one random finals run. They had mediocre regular seasons, followed by middling playoff runs in all the other seasons in that time period. In contrast, Durant has lost in the playoffs 9 times, and on 6 of those occasions it has been to the eventual champions, and two of the others were to the 73-9 Warriors and the finalist 2022 Celtics. The only real black mark that’s comparable to those Rockets’ losses is the 2013 loss to the Grizzlies (and even that team won 56 games). And Durant never had years like Hakeem where he was healthy in the regular season and his team either missed the playoffs or barely made it. Of course, the counterargument to that is that Durant has had more talented teams than Hakeem. But a reasonable person could certainly conclude that actually Russell Westbrook is way overrated and was never remotely successful without Durant. And once you conclude that, suddenly you’re just left with Durant making his teams much more consistently great than Hakeem did.

(though Ralph Sampson was really good)

In college. The fact Hakeem did not have a better teammate than NBA Sampson until 1995, yet won a title anyway, is why there is no actual comparison here. Durant has never gone anywhere in the postseason without superstar guard play.

Ralph Sampson was more than just good in college. He was an all-star for four straight years—three of them with Hakeem. And, again, we are talking about what a charitable reading for Durant from a reasonable person might be. And I think that that would be that Russell Westbrook is actually not really a positive. It’s not a conclusion that I’d entirely agree with, but there’s definitely plenty of evidence to support such a conclusion, including playoffs series won by the Thunder where Westbrook was horrible. And if Westbrook is not actually very helpful, then suddenly Durant didn’t really have much help either for a lot of his career and yet led his teams to be consistently quite good.

It’s also worth noting that on the back end of his career, Hakeem actually had teams with other superstar players on them, and it didn’t work. And indeed, the failure to win with Drexler and Barkley in at least that first year together (where they weren’t actually particularly old yet and were healthy in the playoffs) is actually genuinely suggestive of Hakeem not being the type of ceiling raiser that Durant arguably was. That team was crazy talented and didn’t even make the finals.

so it’s not an apples to apples comparison. But the fact remains that Hakeem wasn’t a consistent title contender throughout his career in the same way that Durant has been. Again, I’d take Hakeem over Durant. And that’s mostly because I think Hakeem’s titles are on the high end of impressiveness while Durant’s are on the low end. But I don’t think it can be right to say Durant has no reasonable case over Hakeem when their career resumes are actually really really similar.

If they are only similar in a wholly superficial sense, then no, it is not a reasonable case. This is literally a ringzzzz argument. Shame on Hakeem for only winning two titles with Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell, that to me is minimally different from winning as a free agent addition to a 73-win team.

Again, as detailed above, there’s much more charitable readings of this stuff for Durant. I think you’re thinking that your view is the only reasonable one. That’s not the case. I actually agree with your view in the end, but to say there’s no reasonable case for Durant as compared to a player with a really similar resume is silly IMO. To get to that conclusion, you just have to be very stuck in the idea that your interpretation and valuation of the stuff on those similar resumes is the only reasonable one, and I don’t think that that’s ever going to be right.

[HeartBreakKid]

Top 10 if you dont count the older players pre the merger.

If you start counting at Magic and Bird (Which most peole do) then top 10 is reasonable

Why is it reasonable to start counting at Magic and Bird?

That was shortly after the NBA/ABA merged.

Most fans consider anything pre this as pre modern NBA

In fact I was reading that most considered Larry Bird as the greatest player ever even starting as early as 1986.

Basically even back then they considered the older era of the NBA fake

I don't think it was "most".

Also, the current face of the league is always going to have people saying they are the goat.

[Cavsfansince84]

That was shortly after the NBA/ABA merged.

Most fans consider anything pre this as pre modern NBA

In fact I was reading that most considered Larry Bird as the greatest player ever even starting as early as 1986.

Basically even back then they considered the older era of the NBA fake

There was some talk among the media of that back then but its not something that really caught on as a popular opinion. More so after he had the bone spur surgery in 89 and his prime essentially ended. I think at highest(circa 1990) people had Bird at around #3 or 4 and then MJ had passed him within a couple years and the media was all in on the MJ is goat narrative. Obviously Magic may have passed him as well in that time.

[ManyaWarrior]

19-20

This is how I feel. I know a lot of people place him higher than that, but I don’t really see the argument. Even in his own era, he was rarely a top 5 player.

He was a top 5 player almost every season he was healthy between 2010-2022 and most of them arent even debatable

[Cavsfansince84]

I put Hakeem over Durant, but I disagree that there’s no reasonable case for Durant. Just at a very basic level, both players have 2 titles and 1 finals loss, 2 Finals MVPs, 1 regular season MVP, and virtually identical all-NBA selections, so these just can’t be two players in a completely different stratosphere. Indeed, Durant actually has a higher total MVP vote share (3.21 vs. 2.61). On its face, it seems like a pretty obviously debatable duo of players, since their resumes are really similar. And people forget that for a large portion of Hakeem’s career, the teams he was leading barely made the playoffs (or even missed the playoffs) and would typically lose to pretty unremarkable teams in the playoffs (though they did have a fairly flukey run the finals in 1986—definitely a credit to Hakeem), even when Hakeem had been totally healthy.

KD has 6 1st teams and 4 2nd teams to Hakeem's 6 1st's and 3 2nd's but that also leaves out Hakeem's 2x dpoy and 9x all def 1st/2nd teams to KD's 0.

[HeartBreakKid]

The highest KD could go would be 12th. There’s 11 guys who clearly have a resume that is superior to him. Specifically, in no particular order: Shaq, Kobe, Curry, LeBron, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Magic, Bird, and Duncan. After those guys, you get to the realm of guys with things like 2 MVPs and 1 title or 1 MVP and 2 titles. Durant is in that tier of achievement, and so there’s probably an argument to have him anywhere within that tier. If you put him at the top of that tier, he’d be at 12th all-time. But there’s a handful of other guys in that tier, and so if you put him near the bottom of it, he’s probably more like 20th or so. I think a lot of people would put him closer to the bottom of the tier, because fans tend to value his titles a good deal less than other players’ titles. I’d probably put him somewhere in the 16th-20th range (not sure exactly where). But I do think a charitable view of him (combined perhaps with an uncharitable view of some other guys) could put him at 12th.

Durant has no reasonable case over Hakeem imo.

I put Hakeem over Durant, but I disagree that there’s no reasonable case for Durant. Just at a very basic level, both players have 2 titles and 1 finals loss, 2 Finals MVPs, 1 regular season MVP, and virtually identical all-NBA selections, so these just can’t be two players in a completely different stratosphere. Indeed, Durant actually has a higher total MVP vote share (3.21 vs. 2.61). On its face, it seems like a pretty obviously debatable duo of players, since their resumes are really similar. And people forget that for a large portion of Hakeem’s career, the teams he was leading barely made the playoffs (or even missed the playoffs) and would typically lose to pretty unremarkable teams in the playoffs (though they did have a fairly flukey run the finals in 1986—definitely a credit to Hakeem), even when Hakeem had been totally healthy. Of course, he didn’t have the supporting casts Durant has had (though Ralph Sampson was really good, and he later got Drexler and then Barkley and even Pippen), so it’s not an apples to apples comparison. But the fact remains that Hakeem wasn’t a consistent title contender throughout his career in the same way that Durant has been. Hakeem was a clearly superior defensive player, but Durant is a clearly superior offensive player. All that said, again, I’d take Hakeem over Durant. And that’s mostly because I think Hakeem’s titles are on the high end of impressiveness while Durant’s are on the low end. But I don’t think it can be right to say Durant has no reasonable case over Hakeem when their career resumes are actually really really similar.

There are double as many All-NBA selections for forwards than centers, so if they have the same amount of selections that likely infers that Hakeem was superior (and he was, by a lot).

You're also comparing media awards to two players who were in different tiers of coverage. Durant is a lot more popular in his era than Olajuwon was (understatement). Durant has been in the center of media since 2010, Olajuwon is largely forgotten between the time he was drafted #1 until he won a title when "Jordan was playing baseball".

[lessthanjake]

I put Hakeem over Durant, but I disagree that there’s no reasonable case for Durant. Just at a very basic level, both players have 2 titles and 1 finals loss, 2 Finals MVPs, 1 regular season MVP, and virtually identical all-NBA selections, so these just can’t be two players in a completely different stratosphere. Indeed, Durant actually has a higher total MVP vote share (3.21 vs. 2.61). On its face, it seems like a pretty obviously debatable duo of players, since their resumes are really similar. And people forget that for a large portion of Hakeem’s career, the teams he was leading barely made the playoffs (or even missed the playoffs) and would typically lose to pretty unremarkable teams in the playoffs (though they did have a fairly flukey run the finals in 1986—definitely a credit to Hakeem), even when Hakeem had been totally healthy.

KD has 6 1st teams and 4 2nd teams to Hakeem's 6 1st's and 3 2nd's but that also leaves out Hakeem's 2x dpoy and 9x all def 1st/2nd teams to KD's 0.

Defensive play is not independent of all-NBA selections. All-NBA is not an All-Offensive team. It’s an All-NBA team, and takes both sides of the ball into account. A good part of why Hakeem got those all-NBA selections is because of his defense. Indeed, he was clearly not as good an offensive player as Durant—the reason he made as many all-NBA teams is because of his defense! So it’s not some additional factor that must be considered above and beyond All-NBA selections.

Durant has no reasonable case over Hakeem imo.

I put Hakeem over Durant, but I disagree that there’s no reasonable case for Durant. Just at a very basic level, both players have 2 titles and 1 finals loss, 2 Finals MVPs, 1 regular season MVP, and virtually identical all-NBA selections, so these just can’t be two players in a completely different stratosphere. Indeed, Durant actually has a higher total MVP vote share (3.21 vs. 2.61). On its face, it seems like a pretty obviously debatable duo of players, since their resumes are really similar. And people forget that for a large portion of Hakeem’s career, the teams he was leading barely made the playoffs (or even missed the playoffs) and would typically lose to pretty unremarkable teams in the playoffs (though they did have a fairly flukey run the finals in 1986—definitely a credit to Hakeem), even when Hakeem had been totally healthy. Of course, he didn’t have the supporting casts Durant has had (though Ralph Sampson was really good, and he later got Drexler and then Barkley and even Pippen), so it’s not an apples to apples comparison. But the fact remains that Hakeem wasn’t a consistent title contender throughout his career in the same way that Durant has been. Hakeem was a clearly superior defensive player, but Durant is a clearly superior offensive player. All that said, again, I’d take Hakeem over Durant. And that’s mostly because I think Hakeem’s titles are on the high end of impressiveness while Durant’s are on the low end. But I don’t think it can be right to say Durant has no reasonable case over Hakeem when their career resumes are actually really really similar.

There are double as many All-NBA selections for forwards than centers, so if they have the same amount of selections that likely infers that Hakeem was superior (and he was, by a lot).

You're also comparing media awards to two players who were in different tiers of coverage. Durant is a lot more popular in his era than Olajuwon was (understatement). Durant has been in the center of media since 2010, Olajuwon is largely forgotten between the time he was drafted #1 until he won a title when "Jordan was playing baseball".

There are double as many all-NBA selections for forwards than centers, and there’s also double as many forwards in the NBA than there are centers. I don’t see your point.

The latter point is just wrong. Hakeem was not “largely forgotten.” The “Twin Towers” was marketed a ton. I grew up in that era and Hakeem was one of my top 2 favorite players (alongside Jordan, of course), despite having never been to Houston in my life at that point and not having access to their regular season games. This was because he was talked about a lot. He was plenty prominent. To some extent, the era of social media and whatnot makes *everyone* be more marketed than before, but playing in an era where everyone is marketed more doesn’t make it easier for any individual player to be recognized. And it certainly doesn’t for a player who spent half his career playing in Oklahoma City.

[Cavsfansince84]

KD has 6 1st teams and 4 2nd teams to Hakeem's 6 1st's and 3 2nd's but that also leaves out Hakeem's 2x dpoy and 9x all def 1st/2nd teams to KD's 0.

Defensive play is not independent of all-NBA selections. All-NBA is not an All-Offensive team. It’s an All-NBA team, and takes both sides of the ball into account. A good part of why Hakeem got those all-NBA selections is because of his defense. Indeed, he was clearly not as good an offensive player as Durant—the reason he made as many all-NBA teams is because of his defense! So it’s not some additional factor that must be considered above and beyond All-NBA selections.

I get all of that and I am not trying to say that regular all nba excludes defense but all def teams are also a type of all nba team and obviously I think its harder to make the regular teams as a center. I don't think its that clear to say he made all def teams based just on his defense either. For most of those years even if defense was taken out of it completely I think he still would have made a lot of 1st or 2nd teams. Hakeem's consistent ability to increase his offense in the playoffs is also well known(26ppg for his career which is even higher than Kobe on probably better efficiency).

[HeartBreakKid]

I put Hakeem over Durant, but I disagree that there’s no reasonable case for Durant. Just at a very basic level, both players have 2 titles and 1 finals loss, 2 Finals MVPs, 1 regular season MVP, and virtually identical all-NBA selections, so these just can’t be two players in a completely different stratosphere. Indeed, Durant actually has a higher total MVP vote share (3.21 vs. 2.61). On its face, it seems like a pretty obviously debatable duo of players, since their resumes are really similar. And people forget that for a large portion of Hakeem’s career, the teams he was leading barely made the playoffs (or even missed the playoffs) and would typically lose to pretty unremarkable teams in the playoffs (though they did have a fairly flukey run the finals in 1986—definitely a credit to Hakeem), even when Hakeem had been totally healthy.

KD has 6 1st teams and 4 2nd teams to Hakeem's 6 1st's and 3 2nd's but that also leaves out Hakeem's 2x dpoy and 9x all def 1st/2nd teams to KD's 0.

Defensive play is not independent of all-NBA selections. All-NBA is not an All-Offensive team. It’s an All-NBA team, and takes both sides of the ball into account. A good part of why Hakeem got those all-NBA selections is because of his defense. Indeed, he was clearly not as good an offensive player as Durant—the reason he made as many all-NBA teams is because of his defense! So it’s not some additional factor that must be considered above and beyond All-NBA selections.

I put Hakeem over Durant, but I disagree that there’s no reasonable case for Durant. Just at a very basic level, both players have 2 titles and 1 finals loss, 2 Finals MVPs, 1 regular season MVP, and virtually identical all-NBA selections, so these just can’t be two players in a completely different stratosphere. Indeed, Durant actually has a higher total MVP vote share (3.21 vs. 2.61). On its face, it seems like a pretty obviously debatable duo of players, since their resumes are really similar. And people forget that for a large portion of Hakeem’s career, the teams he was leading barely made the playoffs (or even missed the playoffs) and would typically lose to pretty unremarkable teams in the playoffs (though they did have a fairly flukey run the finals in 1986—definitely a credit to Hakeem), even when Hakeem had been totally healthy. Of course, he didn’t have the supporting casts Durant has had (though Ralph Sampson was really good, and he later got Drexler and then Barkley and even Pippen), so it’s not an apples to apples comparison. But the fact remains that Hakeem wasn’t a consistent title contender throughout his career in the same way that Durant has been. Hakeem was a clearly superior defensive player, but Durant is a clearly superior offensive player. All that said, again, I’d take Hakeem over Durant. And that’s mostly because I think Hakeem’s titles are on the high end of impressiveness while Durant’s are on the low end. But I don’t think it can be right to say Durant has no reasonable case over Hakeem when their career resumes are actually really really similar.

There are double as many All-NBA selections for forwards than centers, so if they have the same amount of selections that likely infers that Hakeem was superior (and he was, by a lot).

You're also comparing media awards to two players who were in different tiers of coverage. Durant is a lot more popular in his era than Olajuwon was (understatement). Durant has been in the center of media since 2010, Olajuwon is largely forgotten between the time he was drafted #1 until he won a title when "Jordan was playing baseball".

There are double as many all-NBA selections for forwards than centers, and there’s also double as many forwards in the NBA than there are centers. I don’t see your point.

The latter point is just wrong. Hakeem was not “largely forgotten.” The “Twin Towers” was marketed a ton. I grew up in that era and Hakeem was one of my top 2 favorite players (alongside Jordan, of course), despite having never been to Houston in my life at that point and not having access to their regular season games. This was because he was talked about a lot. He was plenty prominent. To some extent, the era of social media and whatnot makes *everyone* be more marketed than before, but playing in an era where everyone is marketed more doesn’t make it easier for any individual player to be recognized. And it certainly doesn’t for a player who spent half his career playing in Oklahoma City.

I mean if you're a superstar it is easier to make a forward selection than a center selection. That's pretty obvious. What does there being double the amount of forwards have to do when we are talking about the elite of the NBA? If there are two MVP caliber players who are forwards they can both make the 1st team. If it is an era that has 3 MVP caliber centers then obviously only one can make 1st team. Did Hakeem play in an era that had more than 1 MVP caliber center?



The Thunder were an incredibly trendy team with their gear everywhere. Durant and Westbrook have been in the center of NBA media for their entire duration. The Thunder were among the leaders in most national games despite being the smallest market. They also played in an era where people can watch their games even if they're not from OKC. Then Durant went to GSW where he was definitely the center...then he went to Brooklyn which he is still relevant albeit for negative reasons. If anything his time in Phoenix has been the most cooled down time in his entire career.


You're seriously comparing the Olajuwon twin tower era which was like 2 seconds to Durant's nearly entire career? Hakeem is definitely forgotten, how many conversations have you had about Hakeem regarding his seasons between 1987-1992? Many people forgot he even went to the NBA finals before 1994. He may as well have played for like 3 seasons the way he is talked about normally.

I really can't sit here and talk to someone who "lived during Olajuwons era" (which means what, you're like 30 something?) and thinks that he has the same level of prominence as Kevin Durant. Maybe you just don't know how to gage that stuff, but that's honestly just absurd. Durant even (erroneously) gets compared to Lebron James, frequently who is probably the 3rd most famous basketball player of all time. There is a sizeable minority of people who will say Durant is better than James or better than him in a handful of select seasons - Olajuwon never had that type of delusion in comparison with Jordan. People are more likely to say "really, that guy?" than say "Olajuwon was better than Jordan".


Hakeem Olajuwon being your favorite player when you're not from Houston doesn't mean anything (not even your favorite by your own admission, your favorite is the media Jesus). Paul Pierce was my favorite player and I am not from Boston, that does not mean that he all over New York media for his prime. Are you saying with a straight face that Paul Pierce was covered well in the media before 2008? Favorite player isn't indicative of their media coverage. Durant is a media star the likes that Olajuwon never was, and is more famous than Olajuwon even today.

Hakeem is not talked about nearly with the same prominence as many other top ten all timers outside of serious basketball circles and is often left out of top tens by more wider audiences. Do you think that has nothing to do with how much of a non-story the Rockets were for the majority of his career as well as other commercial factors? (played in a more domestic time, foreign player, not a big personality, a center in a time when perimeter players became the star of the show, didn't play with another star for most his career played in a less popular conference, won his title when the mega star/team of his era was not there).

There are more people who are familiar with Olajuwon playing wtih Chuck and Pippen than say, 88 Olajuwon. You're talking two different ages of media. By the time the NBA got better at covering more teams Olajuwon was already old.