Higher on your all time list: Westbrook, Jason Kidd, Gary Payton, Isiah Thomas

[scrabbarista]

Thomas
Kidd
Westbrook
Payton

I think they're comparable enough that any of the possible rank combinations is fine. Not any clear separation here, imo. You could put them in the exact opposite order I have, and I'd just say, "Yep."

[Owly]

Thomas like all earlier players has greater uncertainty of impact as interpreted by impact metrics and Westbrook has very legitimate criticisms. That said, at his apex, it's hard to say Westbrook is lacking evidence of high level impact on winning that Thomas possesses.

I think there's some evidence which exists. Namely the following:
1. WB playing with a guy who finished top 2 in mvp voting 4 times and was a 4x scoring champ on terrific efficiency during his years with the best on/off and when his teams did the best.
2. Isiah otoh didn't really play with anyone that I think was considered a top 15 or maybe even 20 player during his prime. Yet those teams did what they did. Granted they had depth and a great coach+ defense but at the end of the day they came very close to a 3 peat with Isiah seen as their best player and beat some very good teams. That to me speaks on some level of Isiah having greater impact on winning.
3. What we've seen of WB as lead dog since 2016. In short, I don't think he's a guy you can build a contender around or that you even want to try to. Isiah was built around successfully and understood when he needed to give up some stats for the good of the team both in terms of pace and allowing other players to have a bigger role. So we can call this doing what it takes to win or even bbiq but I think Isiah trumps WB here. I'd also say Isiah was better defensively than some give him credit. He and Dumars could cause a lot of trouble for teams with their traps.

So
Firstly the "reasoning" above is ad hoc and in places ignores the post it is in response to.
1) Durant is noted in the post.
I think you're saying Durant had a better on off than Westbrook ... that isn't clear. It will depend what year, playoffs or RS. But as a simple first glance version Westbrook's OKC franchise on-off is +5.2, Durant's is +3.7. Take out that rookie year and do just their common era and it's up to +5.3 for Durant and down to +3.2 but then go to the playoffs for the same stretch and Westbrook is up to +9.0 and Durant only +5.1 (these are of course off a smaller sample, limited unbalanced schedule etc ...) ... It's far from clear ... if that "and" wasn't meant to be there and we are talking RS then it would be harder to contest.
2) Teams aren't defined by their second best player so this really doesn't matter. Perception doesn't matter than much to me either except where it's the least worst tool.
But fwiw ...
If you mean wasn't considered in the top 15 players at the time ... my recollection is that Dumars is typically matching or besting Thomas in terms of accolade voting in the title years (90 both equally irrelevent for MVP, Dumars makes third team, Thomas doesn't; '89 both again get a token last spot on one ballot neither makes all-NBA though Thomas is admittedly closer) so in terms of perceptions ... it's not clear that any Pistons were locks in the top tier, but one seems to have been viewed about even to Thomas.

3) This is way off the impact argument. And it suggests "Isiah ... understood when he needed to give up some stats for the good of the team both in terms of pace and allowing other players to have a bigger role." His usage is higher in the title years than 84-86 so is turnovers. He's consuming more possessions. So unless it's just pace (or him scoring less because he's missing and turning it over more). And for one thing I'm not sure that that's "giving up stats" and for a second I don't know what "understood" means in this context ... he promoted himself sacrificing his numbers but what exactly are we praising him for ... not failing to accede to a coach's demands?

"What we've seen of WB as lead dog since 2016. In short, I don't think he's a guy you can build a contender around or that you even want to try to." I'm not the biggest Westbrook fan. Not by a long way. His game has real warts. That said you are responding to a post that highlighted the 16-18 spell. You say look at post-Durant but I'm looking at those years and those first years look really good. I don't think he should have got MVP or was the best player but at the same time it was understandable, despite -I will repeat - my disagreement. Thomas got a single 1st place ballot for MVP over his career (tying him with Kelvin Ransey in that era ... but Westbrook is the one who is not merely sub-optimal but not someone you "can" build, not so much as a champion but merely a "contender" around and indeed it's not even at a point where you'd want to try ...? If this is just RingzTM then the discussion isn't worth having, but fwiw if there is a playoff tilt (not my bag personally), as noted the Thunder did really well with him on the floor especially once they became a real threat.

[RoyceDa59]

Thomas
Payton
Kidd
Westbrook

[mdonnelly1989]

According to my NBA 72 list they're all within 8 spaces of each other, in the late 30s-mid 40s

Isiah
Kidd
Glove
WB

That sounds accurate they are that close when you look at everything IMO

[Cavsfansince84]

So
Firstly the "reasoning" above is ad hoc and in places ignores the post it is in response to.
1) Durant is noted in the post.
I think you're saying Durant had a better on off than Westbrook ... that isn't clear. It will depend what year, playoffs or RS. But as a simple first glance version Westbrook's OKC franchise on-off is +5.2, Durant's is +3.7. Take out that rookie year and do just their common era and it's up to +5.3 for Durant and down to +3.2 but then go to the playoffs for the same stretch and Westbrook is up to +9.0 and Durant only +5.1 (these are of course off a smaller sample, limited unbalanced schedule etc ...) ... It's far from clear ... if that "and" wasn't meant to be there and we are talking RS then it would be harder to contest.
2) Teams aren't defined by their second best player so this really doesn't matter. Perception doesn't matter than much to me either except where it's the least worst tool.
But fwiw ...
If you mean wasn't considered in the top 15 players at the time ... my recollection is that Dumars is typically matching or besting Thomas in terms of accolade voting in the title years (90 both equally irrelevent for MVP, Dumars makes third team, Thomas doesn't; '89 both again get a token last spot on one ballot neither makes all-NBA though Thomas is admittedly closer) so in terms of perceptions ... it's not clear that any Pistons were locks in the top tier, but one seems to have been viewed about even to Thomas.

3) This is way off the impact argument. And it suggests "Isiah ... understood when he needed to give up some stats for the good of the team both in terms of pace and allowing other players to have a bigger role." His usage is higher in the title years than 84-86 so is turnovers. He's consuming more possessions. So unless it's just pace (or him scoring less because he's missing and turning it over more). And for one thing I'm not sure that that's "giving up stats" and for a second I don't know what "understood" means in this context ... he promoted himself sacrificing his numbers but what exactly are we praising him for ... not failing to accede to a coach's demands?

"What we've seen of WB as lead dog since 2016. In short, I don't think he's a guy you can build a contender around or that you even want to try to." I'm not the biggest Westbrook fan. Not by a long way. His game has real warts. That said you are responding to a post that highlighted the 16-18 spell. You say look at post-Durant but I'm looking at those years and those first years look really good. I don't think he should have got MVP or was the best player but at the same time it was understandable, despite -I will repeat - my disagreement. Thomas got a single 1st place ballot for MVP over his career (tying him with Kelvin Ransey in that era ... but Westbrook is the one who is not merely sub-optimal but not someone you "can" build, not so much as a champion but merely a "contender" around and indeed it's not even at a point where you'd want to try ...? If this is just RingzTM then the discussion isn't worth having, but fwiw if there is a playoff tilt (not my bag personally), as noted the Thunder did really well with him on the floor especially once they became a real threat.

Regarding
1) I brought up KD because I think things like on/off and +/- will be influenced by a pg playing with the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league who is also one of the best iso scorers to ever play the game. My point was that Isiah didn't play with another top tier player.
2) Dumars became a 3rd team all nba type guy by around the second title. They had AD for a couple years at which point he was still very effective but in a somewhat reduced role. Isiah at that point had already been all nba 1st or 2nd team 5 times and top 5 in mvp voting. So I think we know what kind of player he was then he goes directly from those years to 3 straight finals, 2 rings and a fmvp. Despite his usage holding steady the team's pace goes from around 105 to 95 from 85 to 89 and his overall stats look worse due to both the pace and Dumars taking on a larger role as a combo guard. So that's what I was saying with that. I think Isiah on a different team could have put up bigger stats and gotten more accolades.
3) I think WB is better suited to carry a team to 50 wins. I'm not sure what kind of playoff results he will lead a team to in that 17-19 period even if you give him two all stars who aren't top 20 players. If everything I said really reduces down to a ringz type of argument for you then just whatever. Its quite possible to bring up playoff results which include rings without it being all about ringz. Isiah's results and playoff performances deserve to be mentioned imo and could be seen as evidence that he has a bigger impact towards winning than Russ does.

[Owly]

So
Firstly the "reasoning" above is ad hoc and in places ignores the post it is in response to.
1) Durant is noted in the post.
I think you're saying Durant had a better on off than Westbrook ... that isn't clear. It will depend what year, playoffs or RS. But as a simple first glance version Westbrook's OKC franchise on-off is +5.2, Durant's is +3.7. Take out that rookie year and do just their common era and it's up to +5.3 for Durant and down to +3.2 but then go to the playoffs for the same stretch and Westbrook is up to +9.0 and Durant only +5.1 (these are of course off a smaller sample, limited unbalanced schedule etc ...) ... It's far from clear ... if that "and" wasn't meant to be there and we are talking RS then it would be harder to contest.
2) Teams aren't defined by their second best player so this really doesn't matter. Perception doesn't matter than much to me either except where it's the least worst tool.
But fwiw ...
If you mean wasn't considered in the top 15 players at the time ... my recollection is that Dumars is typically matching or besting Thomas in terms of accolade voting in the title years (90 both equally irrelevent for MVP, Dumars makes third team, Thomas doesn't; '89 both again get a token last spot on one ballot neither makes all-NBA though Thomas is admittedly closer) so in terms of perceptions ... it's not clear that any Pistons were locks in the top tier, but one seems to have been viewed about even to Thomas.

3) This is way off the impact argument. And it suggests "Isiah ... understood when he needed to give up some stats for the good of the team both in terms of pace and allowing other players to have a bigger role." His usage is higher in the title years than 84-86 so is turnovers. He's consuming more possessions. So unless it's just pace (or him scoring less because he's missing and turning it over more). And for one thing I'm not sure that that's "giving up stats" and for a second I don't know what "understood" means in this context ... he promoted himself sacrificing his numbers but what exactly are we praising him for ... not failing to accede to a coach's demands?

"What we've seen of WB as lead dog since 2016. In short, I don't think he's a guy you can build a contender around or that you even want to try to." I'm not the biggest Westbrook fan. Not by a long way. His game has real warts. That said you are responding to a post that highlighted the 16-18 spell. You say look at post-Durant but I'm looking at those years and those first years look really good. I don't think he should have got MVP or was the best player but at the same time it was understandable, despite -I will repeat - my disagreement. Thomas got a single 1st place ballot for MVP over his career (tying him with Kelvin Ransey in that era ... but Westbrook is the one who is not merely sub-optimal but not someone you "can" build, not so much as a champion but merely a "contender" around and indeed it's not even at a point where you'd want to try ...? If this is just RingzTM then the discussion isn't worth having, but fwiw if there is a playoff tilt (not my bag personally), as noted the Thunder did really well with him on the floor especially once they became a real threat.

Regarding
1) I brought up KD because I think things like on/off and +/- will be influenced by a pg playing with the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league who is also one of the best iso scorers to ever play the game. My point was that Isiah didn't play with another top tier player.

So ... you brought it up to repeat back to me the influence playing alongside a superstar could have on raw impact stats ...

Westbrook has (and this is a noisy stat, using raw on-off because it's the same for everyone in terms of there shouldn't be too many version or variation) three straight seasons where his team are between 12 and 13 points better with him on the court. Now this is situational. One of those years sees him starting alongside another superstar etc ...

Then the very fact that he was noted is itself noted.
Yes of course who you are on court with matters.
That said what you seemed to say goes further and as I have noted I think focusing on a single player in these matters is misleading.
Fwiw though you did seem to go further in absolutely stating Durant "the best on-off" not just that he would influence Westbrook's and as I noted, that depends where one is looking (and fwiw, a pro-Thomas argument tends to suggest one is happy to tilt heavily towards the playoffs). Unless you were meaning that Westbrook's best on-off years were beside Durant, but then that would be odd (and I think wrong) in response to a post highlighting his best years as a 3 year stretch two of which are without Durant. Or else you meant something else unclear to me.

2) Dumars became a 3rd team all nba type guy by around the second title.

He wasn't polling far behind Thomas in '89. Neither made it it to third team. Both have similar box composites. And Dumars is regarded highly as a defender, especially at this time whilst being very low end in defensive box production (i.e. box composites may wildly underrate his defense). And fwiw (not a big deal to me but ...), Dumars gets FMVP.

Isiah at that point had already been all nba 1st or 2nd team 5 times and top 5 in mvp voting. So I think we know what kind of player he was

"Had been ... top 5 in MVP voting" ... technically true. Could also be expressed finished 5th, once, with a single (only one in his career) first place vote, finishing closer in points to 7th than 4th (not that much closer than 4th than to 8th ...). Terry Cummings manages the same position with "double" the first place ballots and a better share of the voting points the next year. Another year on Wilkins finishes second with a far better share competing with the top of the field (Bird, Johnson) closer to their apex. I don't think that this evidence is something huge where we say that 5 and 6 years later he "we know" he was of some great standard.

Fwiw, in light of developments regarding 76ers on-off data I think one of his best positional competitors for all-NBA may have been substantially undersold at the time.

then he goes directly from those years to 3 straight finals, 2 rings and a fmvp. Despite his usage holding steady the team's pace goes from around 105 to 95 from 85 to 89 and his overall stats look worse due to both the pace

As noted pace is factored in to most numbers. Even at the time people were aware of the idea of possessions and pace. I don't know how you aggregate numbers but to me the pace isn't an issue (I don't focus on raw boxscore slashlines), that he's passing less, turning it over more and on average missing more are the issues. I'd also suggest teams, rather than individuals make it to the finals.

and Dumars taking on a larger role as a combo guard.

The evidence that he hurt Thomas is ...
Fwiw, I would think a low ego, quality shooting, willing to take on some ball handling but ultimately not really a point guard could/would help assists, cut turnovers and maybe allow him to be more selective (lower usage, increase efficiency) ... that isn't what happens.

So that's what I was saying with that. I think Isiah on a different team could have put up bigger stats and gotten more accolades.

The flip side would be to argue his stats peak was on a no defense team that allowed him to gamble and his stats peak is inflated. (More so if one is on a "people don't account for pace" train). Neither position is really falsifiable

3) I think WB is better suited to carry a team to 50 wins. I'm not sure what kind of playoff results he will lead a team to in that 17-19 period even if you give him two all stars who aren't top 20 players. If everything I said really reduces down to a ringz type of argument for you then just whatever. Its quite possible to bring up playoff results which include rings without it being all about ringz. Isiah's results and playoff performances deserve to be mentioned imo and could be seen as evidence that he has a bigger impact towards winning than Russ does.

The thing is you seem to care about titles but not impact stats in the playoffs. Now I think playoff impact stuff is (very) noisy (though less so than ringz) but if you're going to tilt playoff results heavy but then say "well actually, I don't care that he seemed to correlate more with winning in the playoffs than Durant [this seems to have been ignored] ... but I am willing to pick one four very good players on this team with no impact level data and use the fact that maybe none of them are top 20 although one of the other 3 has perhaps a better claim to that status just on how they were perceived at that time [for whatever that's worth] to diminish their impact and push one guy's ... yeah that feels "ringz"-y. That feels like the argument here. Maybe I've missed some nuance.

Isiah's case for being in this ballpark (one I am presently not inclined to support) is contingent on his playoff performances. Those were better than you'd expect off his RS numbers (how much that is luck, or the cost if it's effort driven ... is a matter for another day, it would be a tangent here and I don't need any more Thomas debate right now). At first glance he's a high-end "riser" versus RS norms at career level for someone with his sample size (at the margin that he misses the playoffs in his weakest years helps, but I don't know how significant that is). But the points I've engaged with haven't, that I recall, noted his playoff performance levels only titles or near-titles i.e. circumstantial, team-level achievements or accolades with a mixed history of accuracy (FMVP x1) ... incidentally both of which could be stated of Dumars.

Regardless I'm intending to leave it here unless there's something compelling.

[Cavsfansince84]

Isiah's case for being in this ballpark (one I am presently not inclined to support) is contingent on his playoff performances. Those were better than you'd expect off his RS numbers (how much that is luck, or the cost if it's effort driven ... is a matter for another day, it would be a tangent here and I don't need any more Thomas debate right now). At first glance he's a high-end "riser" versus RS norms at career level for someone with his sample size (at the margin that he misses the playoffs in his weakest years helps, but I don't know how significant that is). But the points I've engaged with haven't, that I recall, noted his playoff performance levels only titles or near-titles i.e. circumstantial, team-level achievements or accolades with a mixed history of accuracy (FMVP x1) ... incidentally both of which could be stated of Dumars.

Regardless I'm intending to leave it here unless there's something compelling.

Honestly, sometimes it feels like impact stats have replaced all use of nuance and what we get from watching games completely on here. When I mention those 88-90 playoffs runs by the Pistons I am implicitly talking about Isiah's play in them as well which I didn't think I needed to go that far into since afaik you are familiar with all of that. I'm not that invested in any of this tbh, just giving a somewhat simple rationale for what I said in my initial reply. WB otoh sort of went to pieces in that 2016 wcf and had 3 1st rd exits where he was basically a low efficiency gunner after that(which again I figure you are familiar with). I mean his playoff appearances since 2016 after KD left don't paint him that favorably as a lead guy imo. On top of his play in the rs being very erratic in recent years.

[Jaivl]

The PROVEN WINNER, FMVP on loaded ensemble casts argument:

Isiah Thomas - flirting
Dennis Johnson, Tony Parker - harassment

Now IT is a clearly better player than both I'd say, but the arguments being offered are horrible, as par for the course with 80s/90s stars.

[Owly]

Isiah's case for being in this ballpark (one I am presently not inclined to support) is contingent on his playoff performances. Those were better than you'd expect off his RS numbers (how much that is luck, or the cost if it's effort driven ... is a matter for another day, it would be a tangent here and I don't need any more Thomas debate right now). At first glance he's a high-end "riser" versus RS norms at career level for someone with his sample size (at the margin that he misses the playoffs in his weakest years helps, but I don't know how significant that is). But the points I've engaged with haven't, that I recall, noted his playoff performance levels only titles or near-titles i.e. circumstantial, team-level achievements or accolades with a mixed history of accuracy (FMVP x1) ... incidentally both of which could be stated of Dumars.

Regardless I'm intending to leave it here unless there's something compelling.

Honestly, sometimes it feels like impact stats have replaced all use of nuance and what we get from watching games completely on here. When I mention those 88-90 playoffs runs by the Pistons I am implicitly talking about Isiah's play in them as well which I didn't think I needed to go that far into since afaik you are familiar with all of that. I'm not that invested in any of this tbh, just giving a somewhat simple rationale for what I said in my initial reply. WB otoh sort of went to pieces in that 2016 wcf and had 3 1st rd exits where he was basically a low efficiency gunner after that(which again I figure you are familiar with). I mean his playoff appearances since 2016 after KD left don't paint him that favorably as a lead guy imo. On top of his play in the rs being very erratic in recent years.

Didn't want to but ...

Happy using rings but discomfort with use of impact stats ... that's the problem?

And circling to an earlier comment from a different poster about hostility towards "stat nerds" we get to ... "what we get from watching games" which at best seems a naive assumption that everybody would take the same message from watching a game and I guess lead to a better view(?) and at worst could seem to imply that the use of impact stats is somehow mutually exclusive to "watching games". To be clear in this context on-off was used (with caveats about it's limitations explicitly stated) specifically in response to (a) a post claiming "impact" and (b) a post talking about team level performance (which is what impact stuff is, except making some distinction between whether the player is on court and with greater nuance than the binary title/no title).

Regarding standard of play as implicit. Why would it be? It isn't discussed. You say you assume I and/or the general audience are familiar sd though that would be a simple easy to agree on thing but without knowledge of what games I have seen or my preferred tools of analysis (as indeed I am with you because, again, his performance wasn't discussed).

That "recent years" Westbrook has been ineffective and even harmful wasn't really questioned and is yet another tangent, rather than engaging with the points made

This was pointless ... I'm definitely out here.

[Cavsfansince84]

Didn't want to but ...

Happy using rings but discomfort with use of impact stats ... that's the problem?

And circling to an earlier comment from a different poster about hostility towards "stat nerds" we get to ... "what we get from watching games" which at best seems a naive assumption that everybody would take the same message from watching a game and I guess lead to a better view(?) and at worst could seem to imply that the use of impact stats is somehow mutually exclusive to "watching games". To be clear in this context on-off was used (with caveats about it's limitations explicitly stated) specifically in response to (a) a post claiming "impact" and (b) a post talking about team level performance (which is what impact stuff is, except making some distinction between whether the player is on court and with greater nuance than the binary title/no title).

Regarding standard of play as implicit. Why would it be? It isn't discussed. You say you assume I and/or the general audience are familiar sd though that would be a simple easy to agree on thing but without knowledge of what games I have seen or my preferred tools of analysis (as indeed I am with you because, again, his performance wasn't discussed).

That "recent years" Westbrook has been ineffective and even harmful wasn't really questioned and is yet another tangent, rather than engaging with the points made

This was pointless ... I'm definitely out here.

Happy using rings as proof or as indicative as a player's impact on winning? yes. Discomfort with impact stats? No, absolutely not. What I am saying is I think they are sometimes being relied on way too much on this board to the point that everyone else seems to be almost shown disdain or as proof of bias of some kind. That's what I am saying. I feel like I engaged with whatever points you brought out but I'm not trying to spend 20 minutes going through with a fine toothed comb as though my life is at stake here or something. It's like instead of impact metrics being seen as one thing to use for or against in a discussion they've become the be all end all of discussion and player impact at times on here. It's just weird to me tbh.

[Johnny Tomala]

Kidd
Thomas
Payton
Westbrook

[OhayoKD]

Didn't want to but ...

Happy using rings but discomfort with use of impact stats ... that's the problem?

And circling to an earlier comment from a different poster about hostility towards "stat nerds" we get to ... "what we get from watching games" which at best seems a naive assumption that everybody would take the same message from watching a game and I guess lead to a better view(?) and at worst could seem to imply that the use of impact stats is somehow mutually exclusive to "watching games". To be clear in this context on-off was used (with caveats about it's limitations explicitly stated) specifically in response to (a) a post claiming "impact" and (b) a post talking about team level performance (which is what impact stuff is, except making some distinction between whether the player is on court and with greater nuance than the binary title/no title).

Regarding standard of play as implicit. Why would it be? It isn't discussed. You say you assume I and/or the general audience are familiar sd though that would be a simple easy to agree on thing but without knowledge of what games I have seen or my preferred tools of analysis (as indeed I am with you because, again, his performance wasn't discussed).

That "recent years" Westbrook has been ineffective and even harmful wasn't really questioned and is yet another tangent, rather than engaging with the points made

This was pointless ... I'm definitely out here.

Happy using rings as proof or as indicative as a player's impact on winning? yes. Discomfort with impact stats? No, absolutely not. What I am saying is I think they are sometimes being relied on way too much on this board to the point that everyone else seems to be almost shown disdain or as proof of bias of some kind. That's what I am saying. I feel like I engaged with whatever points you brought out but I'm not trying to spend 20 minutes going through with a fine toothed comb as though my life is at stake here or something. It's like instead of impact metrics being seen as one thing to use for or against in a discussion they've become the be all end all of discussion and player impact at times on here. It's just weird to me tbh.

Westbrook has a flatly more impressive box-profile for the 14 and 16 postseasons compared to Durant unless you just ignore ast:tov as part of a player's box-portfolio, and in 16 he faced more defensive attention. Moreover the gap increased vs contenders(spurs, clippers, warriors) with the only series durant clearly outplaying westbrook being the first round of 2014 with Westbrook having a knock(and okc nearly being knocked out by a non-contender). I have no idea what approach you get to where Westbrook is less capable of leading a title team besides ring-counting. He was the best player when OKC thumped a 70-win srs opponent and took another 70-win srs opponent to 7

Also, let's cut the crap. Impact data is not typically used as the "be-all, end-all". They're used in conjunction with other-stuff but you like to be reductive so now it's other people using things wrong as opposed to you not being interested enough to get into the weeds.

(see post #34) trex

[Cavsfansince84]

Westbrook has a flatly more impressive box-profile for the 14 and 16 postseasons compared to Durant unless you just ignore ast:tov as part of a player's box-portfolio, and in 16 he faced more defensive attention. Moreover the gap increased vs contenders(spurs, clippers, warriors) with the only series durant clearly outplaying westbrook being the first round of 2014 with Westbrook having a knock(and okc nearly being knocked out by a non-contender). I have no idea what approach you get to where Westbrook is less capable of leading a title team besides ring-counting. He was the best player when OKC thumped a 70-win srs opponent and took another 70-win srs opponent to

Also, let's cut the crap. Impact data is not typically used as the "be-all, end-all". They're used in conjunction with other-stuff but you like to be reductive so now it's other people using things wrong as opposed to you not being interested enough to get into the weeds.

Nowhere did I say that KD outplayed WB in every series they played together. I never even contested that so why is it being used now as some kind of proof of something? I'm not out to get WB here or to prop up Isiah. I don't think the case for or against WB was ever simply how he played relative to KD. Its more what they were able to achieve as a duo that I was referring to and KD's status as a top 3 player during that time. Does this mean that WB was the better player during their time together or something? So idk where you are coming from tbh. I'm using very consistent criteria from my pov, not to sit here and say 'Isiah is clearly better, you are wrong and my argument is ironclad', which is apparently how you or Owly might be taking it, but simply as a reasoning for why I said what I did in this thread. Which is that I think Isiah had qualities as a bb player which lend themselves to winning that WB doesn't and that I think he proved you could build a title team around him(without the benefit of a top 3 player like WB had in Okc) while I wouldn't particularly want to build a team around WB. So take it however you want. I'm not here for childish sorts of nonsense though or whatever it is you are doing here bro. Also, yes impact data can and is often dropped on this board as some kind of proof of things. Not always but it does happen. I also brought up the 2017-2019 playoffs and somehow that was irrelevant to everything.

[trex_8063]

Happy using rings as proof or as indicative as a player's impact on winning? yes. Discomfort with impact stats? No, absolutely not. What I am saying is I think they are sometimes being relied on way too much on this board to the point that everyone else seems to be almost shown disdain or as proof of bias of some kind. That's what I am saying. I feel like I engaged with whatever points you brought out but I'm not trying to spend 20 minutes going through with a fine toothed comb as though my life is at stake here or something. It's like instead of impact metrics being seen as one thing to use for or against in a discussion they've become the be all end all of discussion and player impact at times on here. It's just weird to me tbh.
Westbrook has a flatly more impressive box-profile for the 14 and 16 postseasons compared to Durant unless you just ignore ast:tov as part of a player's box-portfolio, and in 16 he faced more defensive attention. Moreover the gap increased vs contenders(spurs, clippers, warriors) with the only series durant clearly outplaying westbrook being the first round of 2014 with Westbrook having a knock(and okc nearly being knocked out by a non-contender). I have no idea what approach you get to where Westbrook is less capable of leading a title team besides ring-counting. He was the best player when OKC thumped a 70-win srs opponent and took another 70-win srs opponent to 7

Also, let's cut the crap. Impact data is not typically used as the "be-all, end-all". They're used in conjunction with other-stuff but you like to be reductive so now it's other people using things wrong as opposed to you not being interested enough to get into the weeds.

This is a bit salty. You frequently make some very salient points, but then also choose to couple it with combative language, language which can contribute to threads devolving into a trading of pot-shots until they're locked. Not worthy of a warning, but please......just tone down the "causticness" about 20-25%. Thanks.

[OhayoKD]

Westbrook has a flatly more impressive box-profile for the 14 and 16 postseasons compared to Durant unless you just ignore ast:tov as part of a player's box-portfolio, and in 16 he faced more defensive attention. Moreover the gap increased vs contenders(spurs, clippers, warriors) with the only series durant clearly outplaying westbrook being the first round of 2014 with Westbrook having a knock(and okc nearly being knocked out by a non-contender). I have no idea what approach you get to where Westbrook is less capable of leading a title team besides ring-counting. He was the best player when OKC thumped a 70-win srs opponent and took another 70-win srs opponent to

Also, let's cut the crap. Impact data is not typically used as the "be-all, end-all". They're used in conjunction with other-stuff but you like to be reductive so now it's other people using things wrong as opposed to you not being interested enough to get into the weeds.

Nowhere did I say that KD outplayed WB in every series they played together. I never even contested that so why is it being used now as some kind of proof of something? I'm not out to get WB here or to prop up Isiah. I don't think the case for or against WB was ever simply how he played relative to KD.

You argued we saw what Westbrook could do as a #1 when kd left and expressed skepticism regarding the pro-westbrook impact data. I am telling you even going by box stuff, westbrook was the 1 for two of those runs before Durant's depature.

Its more what they were able to achieve as a duo that I was referring to and KD's status as a top 3 player during that time. Does this mean that WB was the better player during their time together or something? So idk where you are coming from tbh. I'm using very consistent criteria from my pov, not to sit here and say 'Isiah is clearly better, you are wrong and my argument is ironclad', which is apparently how you or Owly might be taking it, but simply as a reasoning for why I said what I did in this thread.

[/quote]
I did not allege you said something similar to what was in those quotation marks or that you had some bias towards Isiah. Defending yourself against attacks no one levied is "childish".

Also, yes impact data can and is often dropped on this board as some kind of proof of things.

It is utilized as a basis to argue a player has "winning qualities" or what qualities lead to winning in the first place. You make no attempt at that so you're left guessing blindly or literally arguing "but he won" like with...

I also brought up the 2017-2019 playoffs and somehow that was irrelevant to everything.

[/quote]
No. I brought up the 17-19 playoffs(in response to you asking for a basis). And i specifically highlighted the Warriors underperforming during that stretch with durant. You ignored that entirely and then said "KD won as an arguable #1 in 2017-2019" without addressing what you specifically asked for because apparently you're under the impression that KD did not have alot more help on the 17-19 warriors than Pippen(or westbrook) did with the 94 bulls and the 15/16 thunder respectively.

You understand that 73-win help does not stop becoming 73-win help because you think it was more of an ensemble effort than player 2 carrying? Does KD "arguably" being better than Steph magically stop the warriors from being the most stacked supporting cast in league history? The warriors had 2 players in the top 5 of MVP voting before Durant joined. What does it matter who was "the best"

[OhayoKD]

Happy using rings as proof or as indicative as a player's impact on winning? yes. Discomfort with impact stats? No, absolutely not. What I am saying is I think they are sometimes being relied on way too much on this board to the point that everyone else seems to be almost shown disdain or as proof of bias of some kind. That's what I am saying. I feel like I engaged with whatever points you brought out but I'm not trying to spend 20 minutes going through with a fine toothed comb as though my life is at stake here or something. It's like instead of impact metrics being seen as one thing to use for or against in a discussion they've become the be all end all of discussion and player impact at times on here. It's just weird to me tbh.
Westbrook has a flatly more impressive box-profile for the 14 and 16 postseasons compared to Durant unless you just ignore ast:tov as part of a player's box-portfolio, and in 16 he faced more defensive attention. Moreover the gap increased vs contenders(spurs, clippers, warriors) with the only series durant clearly outplaying westbrook being the first round of 2014 with Westbrook having a knock(and okc nearly being knocked out by a non-contender). I have no idea what approach you get to where Westbrook is less capable of leading a title team besides ring-counting. He was the best player when OKC thumped a 70-win srs opponent and took another 70-win srs opponent to 7

Also, let's cut the crap. Impact data is not typically used as the "be-all, end-all". They're used in conjunction with other-stuff but you like to be reductive so now it's other people using things wrong as opposed to you not being interested enough to get into the weeds.

This is a bit salty. You frequently make some very salient points, but then also choose to couple it with combative language, language which can contribute to threads devolving into a trading of pot-shots until they're locked. Not worthy of a warning, but please......just tone down the "causticness" about 20-25%. Thanks.

Alright. I'll tone it down

[Cavsfansince84]

No. I brought up the 17-19 playoffs(in response to you asking for a basis). And i specifically highlighted the Warriors underperforming during that stretch with durant. You ignored that entirely and then said "KD won as an arguable #1 in 2017-2019" without addressing what you specifically asked for because apparently you're under the impression that KD did not have alot more help on the 17-19 warriors than Pippen(or westbrook) did with the 94 bulls and the 15/16 thunder respectively.

You understand that 73-win help does not stop becoming 73-win help because you think it was more of an ensemble effort than player 2 carrying? Does KD "arguably" being better than Steph magically stop the warriors from being the most stacked supporting cast in league history? The warriors had 2 players in the top 5 of MVP voting before Durant joined. What does it matter who was "the best"

I brought up the 17-19 playoffs before you had. I mean jeez, none of this is that serious to me but some of you act like this is all a matter of life or death or something. It just saps most of the fun to be had from discussing bb right out of it for me. I don't come here so I can gloat over how right I think I am and get others to bow down before my opinions. I come here simply to discuss bb in a somewhat civilized and respectful way with others who can do so and hopefully have something interesting to add to conversations. So that's all I have to add. I don't think anything I said re Isiah and RW was all that controversial tbh.

[SpreeS]

Kidd
Payton
Thomas


Westbrook