KD in 1957-1971

[rand]

Say you took rookie 2008 KD and sent him back to 1957. Then took 2009 KD and sent him to 1958. Then 2010 KD to 1959. Repeat for each season of KD's career (except 2020 which is just passed over), so the modern versions of KD are transported into the NBA between 1957 and 1971, when obviously there was no 3pt line and officiating was much different.

How many seasons would KD be the best player? In seasons where he is not the best player, how many better players are there? Make whatever assumptions you think are valid about how KD might have to adjust his game.

Note that the question relates to "best player" not "most valuable". Whether KD would have won the MVP or title in any given season is immaterial. It doesn't really matter whether KD played in 82 games or 27 that season.

[HeartBreakKid]

He'd average a lot less 3 pointers - AHA!!!!!!

Well, let's see...he would strangely enough be using the defensive principles of Bill Russell so he would be a good defender even as a young rookie - where as in real life he was not a good defender for quite a while (much less as a 19 year old). 20 year old Durant probably isn't better than Bob Pettit either.

However, his career coinciding with Russell basically means hes not going to be as good as him. Durant will put up a lot of points....and that will be exactly like the Russell vs Chamberlain argument except with Durant. Also, coaches will probably force him to play down low and guard bigger players than he is used too which he probably won't like.

Even with Durant having modern defensive principles he just isn't as talented as Bill on that end, much less during his young adult years. I would say for the first 5 years or so Durant is worse than Bill for sure.

When Durant starts to enter his real prime it'll become more interesting but I don't get how he is better than Chamberlain tbh. And in my opinion Bill > Wilt most years.

So I would say Durant is the 3rd best player during his years in the 50s, perhaps he has a year where he is better than Pettit but it is very dependent on the coaching strategies that are used with Durant.

60s he is third to Bill and Wilt pretty much every year at best. More realistically he is not better than Oscar Robertson, and Jerry West will eventually surpass him I think.


In 70 and 71 you can replace Bill with Kareem and there is no way Durant is better than him.


It's pretty much a 0. He's not better than the GOAT centers especially in an era where perimeter players had less offensive impact.

[thebigbird]

Cmon. Dude would be the best player basically every year and it wouldn’t really be close.

[HeartBreakKid]

Cmon. Dude would be the best player basically every year and it wouldn’t really be close.

yeah man, kareem? that dude is a scrub compared to durant's illegal cross up.

[70sFan]

Cmon. Dude would be the best player basically every year and it wouldn’t really be close.

I'd love to see any reaosnable argument of Durant without three point line and without his dribbling game being better than prime Kareem.

[HeartBreakKid]

Cmon. Dude would be the best player basically every year and it wouldn’t really be close.

I fail to see how he would be the best player. Chamberlain literally averaged 50 points and is a much better defender than Durant and still wasn't clearly the best player.

[HeartBreakKid]

Cmon. Dude would be the best player basically every year and it wouldn’t really be close.

I'd love to see any reaosnable argument of Durant without three point line and without his dribbling game being better than prime Kareem.

You didn't know? If Chamberlain can average 50, durant can average 55!

[70sFan]

Cmon. Dude would be the best player basically every year and it wouldn’t really be close.

I'd love to see any reaosnable argument of Durant without three point line and without his dribbling game being better than prime Kareem.

You didn't know? If Chamberlain can average 50, durant can average 55!

The funny thing that even if we assue that Durant would have averaged 55 ppg (he wouldn't), that wouldn't make him necessarily a more impactful player than Russell.

[thebigbird]

Cmon. Dude would be the best player basically every year and it wouldn’t really be close.

I'd love to see any reaosnable argument of Durant without three point line and without his dribbling game being better than prime Kareem.

First, I said “basically every season.” The end date in this range is 1971, which was Kareem’s second season in the NBA. So, there’s little overlap.

Second, I know how you feel about basketball from the 50s/60s. You and I disagree immensely on it. The topic question proposes a Time Machine argument where you take Durant from X year and transport him into the past. Durant was a top 5 or so player in the modern NBA for numerous years. Nothing will convince me that he wouldn’t be the best player if you transport him 60 years into the past to a far inferior NBA.

[Narigo]

I think he can definitely win MVP in 69. In 70, he be out with an Achilles and when he comes back Kareem will be dominating the league.

[HeartBreakKid]

Cmon. Dude would be the best player basically every year and it wouldn’t really be close.

I'd love to see any reaosnable argument of Durant without three point line and without his dribbling game being better than prime Kareem.

First, I said “basically every season.” The end date in this range is 1971, which was Kareem’s second season in the NBA. So, there’s little overlap.

Second, I know how you feel about basketball from the 50s/60s. You and I disagree immensely on it. The topic question proposes a Time Machine argument where you take Durant from X year and transport him into the past. Durant was a top 5 or so player in the modern NBA for numerous years. Nothing will convince me that he wouldn’t be the best player if you transport him 60 years into the past to a far inferior NBA.

Explain what makes Durant better than Kareem and Chamberlain then.

[70sFan]

Nothing will convince me that he wouldn’t be the best player if you transport him 60 years into the past to a far inferior NBA.

I guess it's pointless to discuss then, if you say that "nothing will convince" you. I just think it's not a good idea to say such things, because you close your mind on potentially valuable content.

[falcolombardi]

Wilt and kareem are much better defenders (wilt specially) and better passers (even more so relative to position)

Durant ballhandling would take a big hit in the era rules so he would lose some options and advantahes adapting to era rules.

He would gain somethingh back vs a less athletic league on average

Without 3's he would lose somr absolute efficiency but with his shooting he would remain a scoring outlier in volume and efficiency, as arguably the greatest midrange player of all time or thereabouts. Playing in a much less efficient era would allow him to still be an absolute outlier in efficiency imo

A comfortable 50+% midrange guy (granted the dribblin rules would make it a bit tougher for him to get to his shot in the middle area in rythim) with a nearly undefensible shot is bonkers in thst era of crowded paints and no 3's, but kareem -also- is a comfortably 50+ midrange scorer with his unstopabble skyhook.... while being a much better defender and having more strenght to get his shot off in the post (a concern with dursnt is his lack of power would be a bigger issue if hr can not rely on face up dribbles)

dursnt has a great post game but lacks power against bigs in the post to gain position

Durant main concern is how well he could adapt his dribble game to era rules. But even in a best case scenario i think he peaks below kareem and peak wilt

[HeartBreakKid]

Wilt and kareem are much better defenders (wilt specially) and better passers (even more so relative to position)

Durant ballhandling would take a big hit in the era rules so he would lose some options and advantahes adapting to era rules.

He would gain somethingh back vs a less athletic league on average

Without 3's he would lose somr absolute efficiency but with his shooting he would remain a scoring outlier in volume and efficiency, as arguably the greatest midrange player of all time or thereabouts. Playing in a much less efficient era would allow him to still be an absolute outlier in efficiency imo

A comfortable 50+% midrange guy (granted the dribblin rules would make it a bit tougher for him to get to his shot in the middle area in rythim) with a nearly undefensible shot is bonkers in thst era of crowded paints and no 3's, but kareem -also- is a comfortably 50+ midrange scorer with his unstopabble skyhook.... while being a much better defender and having more strenght to get his shot off in the post (a concern with dursnt is his lack of power would be a bigger issue if hr can not rely on face up dribbles)

dursnt has a great post game but lacks power against bigs in the post to gain position

Durant main concern is how well he could adapt his dribble game to era rules. But even in a best case scenario i think he peaks below kareem and peak wilt

Yeah that's the thing, like how can Durant possibly be better than them? They can also score at will and are obviously significantly better defenders.

There's no 3 pointline, superstar call, pull through foul, crossovers, changing level of dribbles, carrying...it is not a promise Durant would even be a better scorer than them. If he could drop 3s I could see it even without the handles, but mainly shooting longish 2s? I don't get it.

I feel like a lot of people who voted for Durant as the best probably thought "lol wait, 1959, those are 5'9 white plumbers". They did not factor the question is about being the BEST. It doesn't make much sense how he can be better than Wilt Chamberlain.

Bill Russell his argument will come down to the same it does vs any other superstar. But it's obvious that if one thinks Russell is a legitimate peer to Chamberlain than by proxy he would be better than Durant as well.


And quite frankly, I don't think Durant would be better than Oscar Robertson but I can see how the time travel argument could put it in his favor - literally coming from the future is a pretty big advantage...

I think Durant would just be a 7 foot version of Jerry West with the pros and cons of coming with that size and position. Top tier, bizarre outlie player but Jerry West was never the best player in the NBA (and I think he was better than Durant but I digress).

[wojoaderge]

Where would a (possibly) slightly better than peak Bob McAdoo rank? Imo, there's your answer.

[70sFan]

Wilt and kareem are much better defenders (wilt specially) and better passers (even more so relative to position)

Durant ballhandling would take a big hit in the era rules so he would lose some options and advantahes adapting to era rules.

He would gain somethingh back vs a less athletic league on average

Without 3's he would lose somr absolute efficiency but with his shooting he would remain a scoring outlier in volume and efficiency, as arguably the greatest midrange player of all time or thereabouts. Playing in a much less efficient era would allow him to still be an absolute outlier in efficiency imo

A comfortable 50+% midrange guy (granted the dribblin rules would make it a bit tougher for him to get to his shot in the middle area in rythim) with a nearly undefensible shot is bonkers in thst era of crowded paints and no 3's, but kareem -also- is a comfortably 50+ midrange scorer with his unstopabble skyhook.... while being a much better defender and having more strenght to get his shot off in the post (a concern with dursnt is his lack of power would be a bigger issue if hr can not rely on face up dribbles)

dursnt has a great post game but lacks power against bigs in the post to gain position

Durant main concern is how well he could adapt his dribble game to era rules. But even in a best case scenario i think he peaks below kareem and peak wilt

Yeah that's the thing, like how can Durant possibly be better than them? They can also score at will and are obviously significantly better defenders.

There's no 3 pointline, superstar call, pull through foul, crossovers, changing level of dribbles, carrying...it is not a promise Durant would even be a better scorer than them. If he could drop 3s I could see it even without the handles, but mainly shooting longish 2s? I don't get it.

I feel like a lot of people who voted for Durant as the best probably thought "lol wait, 1959, those are 5'9 white plumbers". They did not factor the question is about being the BEST. It doesn't make much sense how he can be better than Wilt Chamberlain.

Bill Russell his argument will come down to the same it does vs any other superstar. But it's obvious that if one thinks Russell is a legitimate peer to Chamberlain than by proxy he would be better than Durant as well.


And quite frankly, I don't think Durant would be better than Oscar Robertson but I can see how the time travel argument could put it in his favor - literally coming from the future is a pretty big advantage...

I think Durant would just be a 7 foot version of Jerry West with the pros and cons of coming with that size and position. Top tier, bizarre outlie player but Jerry West was never the best player in the NBA (and I think he was better than Durant but I digress).

6'9 Jerry West would be a strong candidate for the best player in the league, but the thing is that Durant isn't as good as West as a passer, defender and ball-handler.

[penbeast0]

In addition to the rule changes, would Durant be Durant without modern weight work, conditioning training, and shoes or would he be . . . Clyde Lovelette?

[Doctor MJ]

Cmon. Dude would be the best player basically every year and it wouldn’t really be close.

yeah man, kareem? that dude is a scrub compared to durant's illegal cross up.

I do think Kareem is the key man to consider when talking about guys who seem like they could have topped Russell.

Part of what caused me to champion Russell as the GOAT was me reaching the unexpected conclusion that I think Russell would still win out, but it's highly debatable.

Back to KD: It's understandable why people would think that guys from today would be the best back then, and offensively they would be, but capacity for defensive impact ruled back in the day and so I think any argument for non-big (KD might be tall but he's never shown the capacity to actually anchor a defense, or really, think in terms of 5-on-5 basketball with the awareness you'd want from an anchor) would really need to start with an analysis of how their presence would specifically neutralize Russell's defense.

This then gets us to the question of how much you can expect to stretch out a defense when your stretching shots count for 67% of what they do now, which I think is a great question to have, but not something we can truly know.

[Doctor MJ]

More realistically he is not better than Oscar Robertson, and Jerry West will eventually surpass him I think.

The question of modern players vs Oscar/West is a bit tricky. I said in my post that modern players sent back to the past would be better, but it really depends on what we mean.

As amazing as Oscar & West's brain's were in a way that KD and most other offensive stars are not, back then, I really don't think they were playing in an optimized style. Hence, I think if you sent top tier offensive players back and built around them so they could play optimally, they'd have more offensive impact than Oscar & West did.

But yeah, the truth is that if you let everybody optimize, I would prefer to have Oscar or West as my offensive foundation. I think I'd put KD ahead of everyone else offensively, but those two guys were pretty dang astounding - saying this as a guy who at one point was pretty skeptical about the '60s in general, and who has long been critical of some of the other players of the past, these guys were just great athletic minds.

[rand]

I think he can definitely win MVP in 69. In 70, he be out with an Achilles and when he comes back Kareem will be dominating the league.

The season KD lost to the Achilles tear is already factored out of the time frame. In 1970 it would be 2022 KD. In 1971 it would be this season's KD.