Durant vs Kobe vs Oscar

[One_and_Done]

Who do you have first? I have mixed feelings about Oscar due to the weak era he played in.

As for Durant vs Kobe I don’t understand the argument for Kobe. Durant was a better scorer, better defender, and a better complementary piece who fit in more easily with others. His longevity is enough that any minor advantage Kobe has is negated.

Let’s just look at a peak to peak comparison to start with. Because KD has the consistency of a metronome (when he’s on the court), a number of different years can be advanced as his “peak”. But 2014 seems to have the strongest case. So let’s look at 2014 KD v.s 2008 Kobe (which is often advanced as Kobe’s best year).

KD: 41.8 pp 100, 9.6 rp 100, 7.2 ap 100, 123 Ortg, 104 Drtg, on an insane 635. TS%

Kobe: 36.5 pp 100, 8.1 rp 100, 6.9 ap 100, 115 Ortg, 106 Drtg, on 576. TS%

KD is better in literally every, single category, and not by a small margin. But let’s be fair to them and look at a bigger, more representative sample.

Here’s KD from 2010 to 2023, a 13 year stretch if we exclude 2020.

RS per 100: 38.2, 10, 6.3, 120 Ortg, 106 Drtg, on 631. TS%
PS per 100: 36.9, 9.8, 5.3, 115 Ortg, 108 Drtg 598. TS%

Kobe from 2000 to 2013:

RS per 100: 37.1, 7.6, 6.9, 112 Ortg, 105 Drtg, TS% 556.
PS per 100: 35.3, 6.9, 6.5, 110 Ortg, 106 Drtg, TS% 543.

So again, KD is basically beating him in every single category except for a trivial defensive rating difference, which could just be noise given how close it is and the sample size. He’s scoring more, and scoring more on insane efficiency. Even his assists are similar, despite Kobe’s supposed passing advantage (which FYI isn’t much of an advantage if you don’t like passing). The difference in Ortg is insane. KD is just cooking him.

On the defensive end KD is almost 7 feet tall with crazy long arms, so he can to a limited extent provide rim protection and switch on to bigger guys, all of which was key to his time on the Warriors. KD fits so much better than Kobe in so many situations, needing a lower usage and complementing other guys. KD was also misused to some degree in OKC, with it now being apparent in hindsight that Westbrook was not an optimal co-star for KD (to put it lightly). He often played with poor spacing in OKC, and thrived anyway.

But let’s turn to the one thing Kobe supporters can maybe argue, which is longevity. I don’t buy this, because KD has had enough longevity to score almost 27K points despite playing through several seasons cut short by COVID and lock outs, so at that point I’d say he has “enough” longevity that unless the person he’s being compared to is a comparably good player longevity isn’t enough to move the needle. But then I’m not even sure we can criticise KD’s longevity too much. Kobe has basically 12-13 healthy-ish, prime type seasons. His last few seasons were negative value add, and the early part of his career is mostly not adding too much. If we took out those years Kobe actually only has 28k+ points, so barely different to KD (who isn’t done yet either).

But what of KD? He was healthy from 2010 to 2014. That’s 5 prime seasons right there. 2016 healthy. That’s 6. 2017 and 2018 he was being rested and was out by design basically, I count those as healthy seasons. KD is up to 8 prime seasons. 2019? He was healthy all the way to the finals, then had an injury. I don’t dock him for that because it’s absurd. It would be rewarding guys like Kobe for getting bounced out in the first round, before they had a chance to injure themselves. That’s 9 prime seasons. In my mind that’s enough to overcome Kobe’s longevity easily. But I also feel KD added good value from 2021 to 2023. In those 3 seasons some of the games he missed were for rest, or due to reasons having nothing to do with injury; if he and the team were keen on him playing more, he could have. He was also healthy for the playoffs in 2021 and 2023 when it mattered (which is what he was being rested for).

I just don’t see what Kobe’s argument over KD would be. KD is just flat out better.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Who do you have first? I have mixed feelings about Oscar due to the weak era he played in.

As for Durant vs Kobe I don’t understand the argument for Kobe. Durant was a better scorer, better defender, and a better complementary piece who fit in more easily with others. His longevity is enough that any minor advantage Kobe has is negated.

Let’s just look at a peak to peak comparison to start with. Because KD has the consistency of a metronome (when he’s on the court), a number of different years can be advanced as his “peak”. But 2014 seems to have the strongest case. So let’s look at 2014 KD v.s 2008 Kobe (which is often advanced as Kobe’s best year).

KD: 41.8 pp 100, 9.6 rp 100, 7.2 ap 100, 123 Ortg, 104 Drtg, on an insane 635. TS%

Kobe: 36.5 pp 100, 8.1 rp 100, 6.9 ap 100, 115 Ortg, 106 Drtg, on 576. TS%

KD is better in literally every, single category, and not by a small margin. But let’s be fair to them and look at a bigger, more representative sample.

Here’s KD from 2010 to 2023, a 13 year stretch if we exclude 2020.

RS per 100: 38.2, 10, 6.3, 120 Ortg, 106 Drtg, on 631. TS%
PS per 100: 36.9, 9.8, 5.3, 115 Ortg, 108 Drtg 598. TS%

Kobe from 2000 to 2013:

RS per 100: 37.1, 7.6, 6.9, 112 Ortg, 105 Drtg, TS% 556.
PS per 100: 35.3, 6.9, 6.5, 110 Ortg, 106 Drtg, TS% 543.

So again, KD is basically beating him in every single category except for a trivial defensive rating difference, which could just be noise given how close it is and the sample size. He’s scoring more, and scoring more on insane efficiency. Even his assists are similar, despite Kobe’s supposed passing advantage (which FYI isn’t much of an advantage if you don’t like passing). The difference in Ortg is insane. KD is just cooking him.

On the defensive end KD is almost 7 feet tall with crazy long arms, so he can to a limited extent provide rim protection and switch on to bigger guys, all of which was key to his time on the Warriors. KD fits so much better than Kobe in so many situations, needing a lower usage and complementing other guys. KD was also misused to some degree in OKC, with it now being apparent in hindsight that Westbrook was not an optimal co-star for KD (to put it lightly). He often played with poor spacing in OKC, and thrived anyway.

But let’s turn to the one thing Kobe supporters can maybe argue, which is longevity. I don’t buy this, because KD has had enough longevity to score almost 27K points despite playing through several seasons cut short by COVID and lock outs, so at that point I’d say he has “enough” longevity that unless the person he’s being compared to is a comparably good player longevity isn’t enough to move the needle. But then I’m not even sure we can criticise KD’s longevity too much. Kobe has basically 12-13 healthy-ish, prime type seasons. His last few seasons were negative value add, and the early part of his career is mostly not adding too much. If we took out those years Kobe actually only has 28k+ points, so barely different to KD (who isn’t done yet either).

But what of KD? He was healthy from 2010 to 2014. That’s 5 prime seasons right there. 2016 healthy. That’s 6. 2017 and 2018 he was being rested and was out by design basically, I count those as healthy seasons. KD is up to 8 prime seasons. 2019? He was healthy all the way to the finals, then had an injury. I don’t dock him for that because it’s absurd. It would be rewarding guys like Kobe for getting bounced out in the first round, before they had a chance to injure themselves. That’s 9 prime seasons. In my mind that’s enough to overcome Kobe’s longevity easily. But I also feel KD added good value from 2021 to 2023. In those 3 seasons some of the games he missed were for rest, or due to reasons having nothing to do with injury; if he and the team were keen on him playing more, he could have. He was also healthy for the playoffs in 2021 and 2023 when it mattered (which is what he was being rested for).

I just don’t see what Kobe’s argument over KD would be. KD is just flat out better.

Adding Oscar to make it not Kobe vs KD and in a post with full paragraphs you had to press enter 14 times, having one sentence with Oscar in it is crazy lol

[One_and_Done]

I feel like these sorts of threads are a good place to let these discussions get fleshed out in the lead up to these players being nominated. I have less to say on Oscar, so I will leave that to others, but alot of people would have these 3 coming up in the same range.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Nice save I respect the adjustments

[70sFan]

Kobe and Oscar are close, depending on the era adjustments you can go with either one at the top.

Durant is distant last to me.

[SpreeS]

It is very difficult to talk about their defense and their impact on the final results, since neither was the base for an elite team defense, but talking about their offences

1. Oscar - the hub of the best offence in 60's era.
2. Durant - one of the greatest iso scorer TS Add 3111.7
3. Kobe - one of the greatest iso scorer w/o efficiency TS Add 1122.1

[migya]

Oscar by alot here and then Kobe as Durant isn't a better defender for his career and certainly at peak. Kobe scored in a much tougher to score era, Durant wouldn't have scored as much as him in the 2000s.

[One_and_Done]

Except the stats don't say that. They also show a marked increase in efficiency for Kobe when the rules changed. New more efficient Kobe was still much less efficient than Durant.

[70sFan]

Except the stats don't say that. They also show a marked increase in efficiency for Kobe when the rules changed. New more efficient Kobe was still much less efficient than Durant.

Except the difference basically doesn't exist when you compare them in the playoffs. 2006-10 Kobe had basically identical TS% as 2012-16 Durant.

[One_and_Done]

Except the stats don't say that. They also show a marked increase in efficiency for Kobe when the rules changed. New more efficient Kobe was still much less efficient than Durant.

Except the difference basically doesn't exist when you compare them in the playoffs. 2006-10 Kobe had basically identical TS% as 2012-16 Durant.

So firstly; obviously this is a cherry picked sample, because 2006-10 is Kobe's very best stretch by TS%, whereas you have (quite intentionally) not picked KDs best stretch. You've also limited it to playoffs only. But let's compare the 2 anyhow.

Kobe: 570 TS% for 38-7-7 per 100, 114 Ortg/108 Drtg
KD: 579 TS% for 36-10-5 per 100, 112 Ortg/106 Drtg

So it's pretty even despite a sample cherry picked to favour Kobe. If we stretched out KDs sample he's ahead., so for instance 2012 to 2021 (age 23 to 32) his per 100 is 38-10-5 on 607 TS% and 116/106. A bigger sample provides a fairer take on KD. There is just no argument this is Kobe; people just hate KD right now, and are cherry picking to try and criticise him.

[tsherkin]

Except the stats don't say that. They also show a marked increase in efficiency for Kobe when the rules changed. New more efficient Kobe was still much less efficient than Durant.

Except the difference basically doesn't exist when you compare them in the playoffs. 2006-10 Kobe had basically identical TS% as 2012-16 Durant.

Why pick 12-16 for Durant? I'm curious why those years. Were you carefully selecting for his worst stretch? If you ignore his very first playoff run, so that's 11 years, he's at 60.2% TS in the playoffs. If you look at Brooklyn, he's at 60.5% (so you can evade the GSW years). If you look at all but his first season in OKC, he's at 58.0%. 11-14, 59.1%.

A very specific way to frame Durant's postseason efficiency.

[70sFan]

Except the stats don't say that. They also show a marked increase in efficiency for Kobe when the rules changed. New more efficient Kobe was still much less efficient than Durant.

Except the difference basically doesn't exist when you compare them in the playoffs. 2006-10 Kobe had basically identical TS% as 2012-16 Durant.

Why pick 12-16 for Durant? I'm curious why those years. Were you carefully selecting for his worst stretch? If you ignore his very first playoff run, so that's 11 years, he's at 60.2% TS in the playoffs. If you look at Brooklyn, he's at 60.5% (so you can evade the GSW years). If you look at all but his first season in OKC, he's at 58.0%. 11-14, 59.1%.

A very specific way to frame Durant's postseason efficiency.

I picked the best Durant stretch as the offensive anchor of his team. You can choose any OKC stretch you want, the difference wouldn't be significant.

I didn't include Warriors stretch for obvious reasons. If you include 2021-23 to OKC stretch, it's still similar thing.

[70sFan]

Except the stats don't say that. They also show a marked increase in efficiency for Kobe when the rules changed. New more efficient Kobe was still much less efficient than Durant.

Except the difference basically doesn't exist when you compare them in the playoffs. 2006-10 Kobe had basically identical TS% as 2012-16 Durant.

So firstly; obviously this is a cherry picked sample, because 2006-10 is Kobe's very best stretch by TS%, whereas you have (quite intentionally) not picked KDs best stretch. You've also limited it to playoffs only. But let's compare the 2 anyhow.

Kobe: 570 TS% for 38-7-7 per 100, 114 Ortg/108 Drtg
KD: 579 TS% for 36-10-5 per 100, 112 Ortg/106 Drtg

So it's pretty even despite a sample cherry picked to favour Kobe. If we stretched out KDs sample he's ahead., so for instance 2012 to 2021 (age 23 to 32) his per 100 is 38-10-5 on 607 TS% and 116/106. A bigger sample provides a fairer take on KD. There is just no argument this is Kobe; people just hate KD right now, and are cherry picking to try and criticise him.

I picked best 4 years stretch as the main offensive anchor for both (and I am generous, because Kobe didn't have anyone close to Westbrook as a playmaker next to him in that span). There is no reason to believe this sample is cherry picked. It literally includes 3 of Durant's best seasons. I didn't pick Kobe years with Shaq for the same reason I missed Durant's Warriors years.

Feel free to pick any non-Warriors stretch if you want, my point will still stand (and I did not even adjust for the era differences).

[tsherkin]

I picked the best Durant stretch as the offensive anchor of his team. You can choose any OKC stretch you want, the difference wouldn't be significant.

For OKC, yeah. It's a little better than Kobe, but he did also have a bad year in his last postseason with OKC which drags things down, for sure. But then he has those Brooklyn seasons. The first year, Harden and Irving missed 3 games in the playoffs and Durant was far and away the team's scoring leader.

But anyway, thanks for answering, was just clarifying.

[ty 4191]

Who do you have first? I have mixed feelings about Oscar due to the weak era he played in.

I'm not sure about KD vs. Oscar- huge advocates of both, to be honest, but, there is this:

https://i.imgur.com/T3sNULd.png

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=most+triple+doubles+1960-61+to+1965-66+including+playoffs

Oscar Triple Doubles (61'-65'): 156

Rest of the NBA COMBINED: 117

[One_and_Done]

If it's really true you want the best sample 70s guy then I provided their entire prime. That way we reduce the noise. Yeh, KD gets several GSW years, but Kobe gets the Shaq years. Kobe also gets the years with a stacked Pau team. Almost any larger sample shows KD to be on another level. You specifically chose Kobe's best 5 year stretch, and limited it to playoffs only; and yes, if we do that it looks more even. It's not a remotely balanced way to do it though.

[lessthanjake]

The other two were probably “better” players than Kobe, but Kobe had a greater career. Which could be due to luck/randomness, or it could be due to greater leadership from Kobe (or a combination of those things).

[tsherkin]

The other two were probably “better” players than Kobe, but Kobe had a greater career. Which could be due to luck/randomness, or it could be due to greater leadership from Kobe (or a combination of those things).

I think it has more to do with luck than anything. You take Shaq out of the equation and Kobe has 3 fewer titles and how he's discussed changes dramatically, because many of his arguments feature "5 titles" as a core focus. Doesn't change his ability as a player, of course, and he still went out and made 3 straight Finals and won consecutive rings as the lead guy anyway, of course. But it does maybe change the tone of conversations about Kobe vs. Oscar, since it's only one title difference and Kobe didn't play in an era with Wilt and Russell dominating things. And then you have to talk about Phil when we're discussing leadership, since he was the peacemaker between Kobe and Shaq, and then Kobe and everyone else. Of course, his personal work ethic was unimpeachable. His decision-making not always ideal, but in his way no worse than, say, Jordan, so I suppose that matters only so much.

So perhaps a little of both.

[lessthanjake]

The other two were probably “better” players than Kobe, but Kobe had a greater career. Which could be due to luck/randomness, or it could be due to greater leadership from Kobe (or a combination of those things).

I think it has more to do with luck than anything. You take Shaq out of the equation and Kobe has 3 fewer titles and how he's discussed changes dramatically, because many of his arguments feature "5 titles" as a core focus. Doesn't change his ability as a player, of course, and he still went out and made 3 straight Finals and won consecutive rings as the lead guy anyway, of course. But it does maybe change the tone of conversations about Kobe vs. Oscar, since it's only one title difference and Kobe didn't play in an era with Wilt and Russell dominating things. And then you have to talk about Phil when we're discussing leadership, since he was the peacemaker between Kobe and Shaq, and then Kobe and everyone else. Of course, his personal work ethic was unimpeachable. His decision-making not always ideal, but in his way no worse than, say, Jordan, so I suppose that matters only so much.

So perhaps a little of both.

I would agree with all this. The one thing I’d note, though, is that even those 3 straight finals with consecutive rings as the lead guy (and without a total superstar #2 guy) is probably more impressive than any success Durant and Oscar have. So he might well have had a “greater” career even if we ignore the Shaq titles.

[tsherkin]

I would agree with all this. The one thing I’d note, though, is that even those 3 straight finals with consecutive rings as the lead guy (and without an total superstar #2 guy) is probably more impressive than any success Durant and Oscar have. So he might well have had a “greater” career even if we ignore the Shaq titles.

More impressive than Durant, for sure.

Don't know if I'd say it was more impressive than Oscar, given the difference in level of competition. Took Boston to 7 in 63, lost in 5 to Boston the year after, lost to Wilt's Sixers in 65, lost in 5 to the Celtics in 66, and lost in 4 to Wilt's Sixers in 67. I think that's pretty impressive, all told. Kobe still had an incredible run, but I don't think Oscar had the same level of team support and definitely faced rougher competition other than in 2008.

That said, it certainly isn't clearly in Oscar's favor, I only mean to illustrate that there is a conversation to have there, rather than it being clearly in Kobe's favor.