lessthanjake wrote:Colbinii wrote:lessthanjake wrote:
Do we consider Durant’s OKC team to have been built around him?
No, they seem to have built around Westbrooks and his relentless rim pressure.
Of course those teams didn’t win a championship, but I do think they were good enough to do so and if we reran those years again there’s a decent chance they get one. But I guess maybe those teams were built around Westbrook as much as around Durant? Durant was always their best player though.
The best player isn't always the player you build around. Durant is both a floor raiser and ceiling raiser but he isn't really a system. Russell Westbrook is a system. Steph Curry is a system. Steve Nash is a system. LeBron James is a system.
Kevin Durant is very much like Anthony Davis in that regard. Neither are a teams system but both are these incredible weapons that--when put within confides of a system [See Curry and LeBron] they can just ooze impact.
I feel like you’re just saying that someone with Durant’s style of play essentially definitionally cannot be considered to have a team “built around” him.
Yup, exactly what I am saying.
Which seems to me like it must be wrong. If someone is the best player on a team and everyone (including the organization itself) understands that and the roster is built with that in mind, then I’d say the team is built around that player. I think the distinction you’re trying to draw is basically to say that a team isn’t “built around” someone unless that player is a primary playmaker. I don’t think that’s right though.
This isn't at all what I am saying.
Let's look back on the Thunder with Westbrook and Durant--both of whom were Superstars.
Which of Durant or Westbrook applied more rim pressure and was the better passer/playmaker? Westbrook
Which of Durant and Westbrook are better shooters and provide off-ball gravity? Durant
Who requires more roster considerations when attempting to maximize their respective impacts? Westbrook
With all this in mind, it is obvious the team should be build around Westbrook. Why? Because Westbrook's impact is very much impacted by who he is sharing the court with, the amount of spacing he has and how much pressure he can apply on the rim. When looking at Durant, his impact is relatively linear--whether there is ample spacing or somewhat-limited spacing, his ability to be a tough shot maker, his limits as a playmaker and his incredible mid-range game allows him to maintain his impact through a variety of roster constructions.
Once we are at this point, it is fairly straightforward that you would want to build the team around Westbrook's strengths and weaknesses since building around Durant could hinder Westbrook a considerable amount.
Another point of contention with Durant is his impact seems to be consistent whether he is on a mediocre team or great team. He requires very little in terms of roster considerations compared to Westbrook.
For instance, I’d say the Mavs were built around Dirk,
No doubt. A much better offensive engine than Durant. Dirk dominated in the post, opened up passing lanes for himself and teammates and had incredible gravity on incredible volume while operating out of the high-post and mid-range area.
the Rockets were built around Hakeem,
They put an abundance of shooters around him [compared to other 1990s teams] and spaced out the floor during his height. Durant doesn't operate like Hakeem does offensively though, and let's face it, Hakeem never anchored good offenses. I don't really consider Hakeem to be a high-level offensive centerpiece.
the Sixers were built around Iverson, etc.
Sure, to middling results at best.
Of course, this is independent of the question of whether building around someone with a particular style of play is easier to do and/or easier to actually be successful with. We may think that Durant’s lack of playmaking makes it harder to build around him effectively. Indeed, my answer to this thread would almost certainly be Jokic and that’d be part of the reason. But I wouldn’t just say Durant categorically can’t actually really have a team built around him in the first place. Whether the Thunder were built around Durant or Westbrook is actually not a super straightforward question IMO, but mostly because Westbrook was a fantastic player as well, so their roster decisions were probably made with both in mind. I’d still lean towards saying the team was more built around Durant, but it’s arguable (hence why I responded to Peregrine with a question).
In Summary:
Durant is extremely portable in the sense that his impact is going to be high no matter the roster. Specifically altering and building a championship level roster around him doesn't make as much sense as altering and tinkering the roster around other high-end talents on the roster seems much more valuable in terms of maximizing the team as a whole.
Westbrook is a player where he suffocates the ball to a degree but applies immense rim pressure which then opens up the entire court for the rest of the team. You really want to maximize Westbrook when he is on your team in order to make "the juice worth the squeeze".
Circling back to the question of the thread--I think Durant may be easier to build around in the sense that he automatically fits seamlessly with any player in the NBA. He isn't pidgeon-holed into the Center slot. Durant doesn't require an active Dunker's Spot athlete. Jokic requires less on-ball playmaking next to him but requires high-volume 3P shooters and specifically one who is elite at attacking off the dribble like Murray to maximize the P&R/DHO's. Durant really needs rim protection, needs more playmaking [but can sacrifice some shooting--see the Bruce Brown P&R actions in Brooklyn] and like Jokic needs defensive minded role players.
I think Jokic with a higher-end build around [See 2023/2024 Nuggets with high-end talent in the starting line-up AND good fits 1-4] that you can get more juice out of the roster as a whole than you can with a similarly talented Durant roster.