Highest reasonable all-time ranking for Kevin Durant?

[AEnigma]

I am asking you to provide the slightest shred of support to the notion that they lost that advantage in 2017, and I am also asking you to stop pretending as if Steve Kerr was the one who revealed to that three-pointers existed.

You are blatantly not thinking about this and instead just manufacturing any possible angle to push a bad point.

The number of three pointers shot in the league went up a good deal in 2017 and again in 2018, and the league’s offensive efficiency went up a significant amount. The Warriors went from shooting 7.5 more threes per game than the league average in 2016 to shooting 4.2 more threes per game than the league average in 2017, and were right at the league average on 2018. That demonstrates the point pretty well, but you could also see it just watching the games—after 2016, teams borrowed tons of stuff from the Warriors offense.

And the Warriors still played at a 10 SRS level in their Durant-less games all the same.

I love how you are pushing two series in a fifteen year career as some crowning achievement.

No. You actually *asked* for examples of Durant having series’ where he played great in a loss. I guess you thought it was a rhetorical question

It was a rhetorical question designed you make you think about which of them tended to show up in the postseason. Evidently that went over your head.

and the answer was that they don’t exist, but I simply pointed out that they do. Me answering your question with an answer is not some suggestion that the answer to your question amounts to a “crowning achievement.” Come on.

You answering the question with two series is why it is a joke of a comparison, but apparently you were more caught up in the idea that somehow the 2012 Finals and 2021 Bucks series were unfamiliar.

So this is where we reach the stage where we pretend Westbrook is the same player year to year and therefore it was all Durant making him look good.

Are you suggesting that it’s categorically wrong to look at how Westbrook did after Durant left in order to help infer how important he was to the Thunder’s success? That’s just silly. Obviously it is relevant. And it’s pretty obvious that the sample of years included there include some of Westbrook’s peak years. Prime Westbrook existed without Durant and the results were mediocre. That’s just objective fact.

Because he kept getting worse as a player, but 2017 he was right at his 2016 level, carried a roster bereft of other offensive production, and outplayed the MVP runner-up in their series. Your continued incapability to divorce players from team results will leave you perpetually at odds with how team sports work.

Lmfao just shamelessly lying now.

Okay, so let’s look at what you are calling “shamelessly lying.” I said the following: “in those years, Westbrook’s teams have barely performed better with him on the court than off the court.” The phrase “in those years,” was very clearly referring to the years after Durant left, because I’d just gotten finished listing his team’s results in those years.

Now, let’s consider whether that was a lie, or whether you’re being an overly aggressive internet warrior so quick to insult that you can’t even get your facts straight.

For this, we’ll turn to basketball reference. In the years I was referring to, what was Westbrook’s regular season on-off number? It was +4.1.

So a clear positive, and that is with you dishonestly treating all those years as equal rather than related to an obvious decline.
2017: +12.5
2018: +12.1
2019: +5
2020-23: -1.1 (three out of four years negative, with a slight +1.3 uptick on the Wizards.

Gee, wonder what to make of that.

And, while this is definitely a noisy, low-sample-size stat what was his playoff on-off number in those years? It was +0.6. Given those numbers—which are not very high—it it obviously not a lie to say that Westbrook’s teams barely performed better with him on the court.

Uh huh.

Did you know both Butler’s and Jokic’s teams have played 3 points better with them off the court over the past four postseasons? That is why I always go around telling people the Nuggets and Heat are better without their stars.

Again: shameless.

I guess you could argue that +4.1 shouldn’t be classified as “barely,” but it’s certainly low for a star player. Honestly, this response from you makes it pretty clear that you’re not talking in good faith or trying to be a remotely pleasant human being. I’d urge you to think about that a bit, and perhaps try to not act like this.

Galling from someone portraying 2020-23 Westbrook as any sort of star.

You know what, though, even with this blatantly bad faith framing:
2022/23 Butler — +2.9 on/off
2021-23 Booker — +4.8 on/off
2020-23 Morant — +2.4 on/off
2019-23 Trae — +3.1 on/off
2019-23 Luka — +1.1 on/off
2019-23 Beal — +1.9 on/off
2019-23 Sabonis — +1.3 on/off
2019-23 Fox — +0.9 on/off
2019-23 Lavine — -1.4 on/off
2018-23 Jaylen — +1 on/off

Insightful stuff. I am sure your concern is nothing but sincere.

How about you take another look at those on/off metrics and get back to me.

Huh? From 2009-2010 through 2015-2016, Durant had an on-off of +7.4, and Westbrook had an on-off of +3.1.

Here again we see you needing to twist the years. Why 2010? What if we actually try to match this with Westbrook’s status as a superstar?
2012-16 Durant: +7
2012-16 Westbrook: +5.8
2013-16 Durant: +8.4
2013-16 Westbrook: +6.7
2014-16 Durant: +8.9
2014-16 Westbrook: +8.1
2015 Durant: +8.8
2015 Westbrook: +6.7
2016 Durant: +12.6
2016 Westbrook: +12.6

Interesting! That sure looks like a player who was so bad that he basically meant the team was on par with Hakeem’s cast. You do remember that, right?

The obviously counterpoint to that is that he had better teammates than Hakeem did in that era, and in many cases that’s true, but I think one could very reasonably take a view of Russell Westbrook that makes that gap not seem very significant for a lot of those Thunder years.

Westbrook’s on-off in the playoffs in those years was actually a bit higher (+9.0 vs. +5.1), but that’s a really low sample size of minutes (for instance, the “off” numbers for Durant in all those years is a grand total of a measly 608 minutes), and is heavily influenced by the fact that it was typically Durant that spent more time being the lone guy leading bench unit in the playoffs. Indeed, you you can look at who the 7th and 8th men in those Thunder teams played the most playoff minutes with, and it’s pretty consistent that it’s more minutes with Durant than Westbrook. And, given the difference in regular season on-off—where there’s a much more significant higher sample size of minutes—I’m not sure what point you thought would be shown here.

Lmfao man you are next level. Not even a paragraph of separation from you griefing Westbrook’s playoff on/off.

But I want to take a moment for that “Durant was sabotaged by bench minutes” idea.

2014-16 Durant/Ibaka, no Westbrook: 67 minutes, -18.62
2014-16 Westbrook/Ibaka, no Durant: 83 minutes, +1.75

2014-16 Durant/Adams, no Westbrook: 139 minutes, -6.41
2014-16 Westbrook/Adams, no Durant: 67 minutes, -2.08

2014-16 Durant/Waiters, no Westbrook: 125 minutes, -4.79
2014-16 Westbrook/Waiters, no Durant: 79 minutes, +1.55

2014-16 Durant/RJackson, no Westbrook: 118 minutes, -14.44
2014-16 Westbrook/RJackson, no Durant: 28 minutes, -5.18

Wow, poor guy sure had it rough.

Then it should be easy for you to pull up impact data discrediting his “value”.

Without Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook has had virtually zero team success in the NBA, despite playing with some really great players. He had zero 50-win seasons. He’s only made it out of the first round once without Durant. And the one series his teams have ever won without Kevin Durant was a series he didn’t even play in most of.

Yeah because 2018-23 Westbrook is very equivalent to 2012-17 Westbrook.

His regular season on-off is only +3.6. The primary case you have for there being “impact data” that suggests Westbrook is of high value is him having a +6.6 playoff on-off. But playoff on-off is a super noisy stat with low sample sizes, and +6.6 isn’t some wildly high number anyways. It’s actually kind of hard to support an argument for Westbrook as a high value guy.

Lol really bringing out career averages huh.

His teams have been subpar except with Durant, and the data doesn’t paint him as some super high impact guy either. Granted, Durant doesn’t grade out super high in on-off either, but he’s been on actually relevant teams in non-Westbrook years, while the reverse is not the case even though Westbrook has had great teammates.

Per TheSpax (for playoff filtering):
2012-16 Westbrook — +3.96 RAPM, 7th in the league
2013-17 Westbrook — +4.55 RAPM, 5th in the league
2014-18 Westbrook — +3.84 RAPM, 9th in the league

Woe is Durant, only had a top ten, borderline top five teammate. If only there were any data support.

I’m perhaps being a bit harsh on Westbrook, but I think this is important, because it seems obvious to me that a reasonable Durant > Hakeem opinion would probably require one to see Westbrook in as negative a light as is reasonably possible. And, honestly, I think there’s a reasonable case for a pretty negative view of Westbrook. He’s an incredibly flawed player who has not been able to be successfully integrated on teams with a bunch of the era’s best players.

A negative view of Westbrook downgrades him to mere all-NBA level impact, not “this guy was so deleterious that his presence basically made the team an equal supporting cast to Hakeem’s.”

If Westbrook put up those numbers you would be losing your mind.

Barkley’s TS% in that series was 57.1%. That’s against a team that gave up a 53.4% TS% that year. So, as compared to his opponent, Barkley had a TS+ of 107.

Here are Westbrook’s TS+ as compared to the opponent’s TS% given up in the series’ the Thunder lost with Durant and Westbrook:

2016 vs. Warriors: 98
2014 vs. Spurs: 105
2012 vs. Heat: 97
2011 vs. Mavs: 91
2010 vs. Lakers: 109

Even though that was an abnormally bad shooting series from Barkley, Westbrook usually scored way less efficiently in the Thunder series losses than Barkley did in that series.

Yes, Barkley was a better scorer than Westbrook. Good job. That does not mean he was more impactful as a bad defensive 4 who lacked Westbrook’s overall playmaking.

You talk about “ceiling raising” like some magic spell. Is Durant scoring better than Hakeem? Maybe, but damn high bar to clear. He is certainly not defending better than Hakeem. So apparently the idea is that he through his sheer presence lifted the efficiency of everyone else enough to make up for all defensive loss (because defence famously does not raise ceilings).

No, it’s the fact that guys who can generate their offense without needing the ball are typically better ceiling raisers than guys that need the ball, because someone who can do their work off the ball allows another star to do their work on the ball at the same time. The defense has to defend two stars doing their stuff at once, rather than just having to defend them while they take turns. That’s a huge force multiplier that makes the team exponentially harder to defend. The fact that Durant and Steph both didn’t need the ball is a HUGE part of why those Warriors teams were so dominant. A guy like Hakeem can’t provide that kind of ceiling raising. To an extent, Hakeem’s defense would lend itself to ceiling raising—since he could get big value on defense without needing the ball on offense—but it isn’t the same kind of force multiplier as having two major stars doing their thing at once on offense.

… But Durant still needs that playmaker. And for as much as you want to talk about scoring gravity, in those Spurs upsets, Westbrook was the one drawing the most attention.

the underlying conversation is literally premised upon me arguing a hypothetical that I expressly do not even agree with. Which, by the way, makes your behavior even more ridiculous—you are engaging in persistent personal insults against someone merely for suggesting that it might be possible for another person to reasonably believe something you disagree with. If you can’t control yourself in that kind of essentially purely academic exercise—where the person you are talking to has expressly stated that they ultimately actually agree with your conclusion—then there may be something deeply wrong with you.

Your hypothetical is based in a ton of your assumptions and conclusions, and that is why you are taking it personally. If this were some abstracted exercise legitimately disconnected from what you believe, you would not be so committed to defending this “purely academic exercise”. The hypothetical is only tenable from a stance that does not respect the sport. That is the point of disagreement. The comparison is not reasonable, and portraying any of the reasoning you shared as such reflects that lack of respect for what players contribute to a team’s results. What is the point in conversation with someone who talks about “advanced stats” like PER and, exactly like your “reasonable” hypothetical person, continually prioritises some abstract sense of box production (heavily skewed by playing on the easiest circumstances in league history for three postseasons…) over holistic on-court impact?

[Cavsfansince84]

I don’t necessarily disagree with this stuff, but I’m not sure all of it is really on point. For instance:

1. The 2010-2014 time period wasn’t the only time period people genuinely entertained the notion that Durant might be superior to LeBron. It happened in the Warriors years too. I never agreed with it. But it was definitely out there as a minority view in a way that it never was with Hakeem and MJ. I think a lot of that is social media + irrational LeBron hatred, but not everyone would see that the same way as I do.

2. You must be talking and listening to different people than me, because, it was definitely the consensus view amongst the people I talk to, as well as sports media that I saw, that Durant was the “best player” on the Warriors, over Curry. Again, I never agreed with that sentiment *at all*, but in my experience it was *definitely* the majority view. And even if it was “pretty 50/50,” I’d say that Durant being pretty 50/50 with a guy that’s typically put above Hakeem all-time could make a reasonable person think Durant should be put above Hakeem. Again, it’s transitive property mumbo-jumbo, but not completely unreasonable, especially when all-time rankings inherently must end up involving some silly cross-era comparisons.

Ok. I think the issue I have with the stuff from point 1 is twofold. First, it's sort of relying on other people's opinions without actually providing much in the way of a basis for why they think that way, which isn't a convincing form of argument unless I know why they thought that and how they would justify it but since I'm well acquainted with all of that I can reliably say that I don't find it convincing and it's not something I see as credible for a KD>Hakeem argument. Also, something can be reasonable to someone else but that doesn't necessarily make it reasonable to me.
On point 2, I still think it was roughly 50/50 by the time KD left there(with real metric/analytical based stuff pointing more towards Steph) and I also don't think Steph is typically above Hakeem so any transitive type of property doesn't work for me as a form of argument. I have Steph as being closer to Hakeem than KD but again that's not a substantive enough approach for me to say its reasonable.
Also, even box score based stuff while perhaps favoring KD has to be caveated with the knowledge that it isn't a great way to measure defense. So I'm not one of those people that is down on box score based metrics but if its a direct player comparison they need to be within a tier on defense imo for it to be somewhat valid. For instance, Kobe v KD I think is more worth comparing box score derived stuff. For someone like Hakeem, it will never capture his defensive value. So I appreciate you making the effort but I'm still of the opinion that there's no reasonable combo of criteria and numbers/proof for putting KD above Hakeem as of now.

[AEnigma]

Also, even box score based stuff while perhaps favoring KD has to be caveated with the knowledge that it isn't a great way to measure defense. So I'm not one of those people that is down on box score based metrics but if its a direct player comparison they need to be within a tier on defense imo for it to be somewhat valid. For instance, Kobe v KD I think is more worth comparing box score derived stuff. For someone like Hakeem, it will never capture his defensive value.

Hakeem still “wins” those box score postseason comparisons!

I guess this entire conversation is just confirmation that, long term, the public will eventually remember those Golden State numbers as Durant’s norm.

[lessthanjake]

I am asking you to provide the slightest shred of support to the notion that they lost that advantage in 2017, and I am also asking you to stop pretending as if Steve Kerr was the one who revealed to that three-pointers existed.

You are blatantly not thinking about this and instead just manufacturing any possible angle to push a bad point.

The number of three pointers shot in the league went up a good deal in 2017 and again in 2018, and the league’s offensive efficiency went up a significant amount. The Warriors went from shooting 7.5 more threes per game than the league average in 2016 to shooting 4.2 more threes per game than the league average in 2017, and were right at the league average on 2018. That demonstrates the point pretty well, but you could also see it just watching the games—after 2016, teams borrowed tons of stuff from the Warriors offense.

And the Warriors still played at a 10 SRS level in their Durant-less games all the same.

I love how you are pushing two series in a fifteen year career as some crowning achievement.

No. You actually *asked* for examples of Durant having series’ where he played great in a loss. I guess you thought it was a rhetorical question

It was a rhetorical question designed you make you think about which of them tended to show up in the postseason. Evidently that went over your head.

and the answer was that they don’t exist, but I simply pointed out that they do. Me answering your question with an answer is not some suggestion that the answer to your question amounts to a “crowning achievement.” Come on.

You answering the question with two series is why it is a joke of a comparison, but apparently you were more caught up in the idea that somehow the 2012 Finals and 2021 Bucks series were unfamiliar.

So this is where we reach the stage where we pretend Westbrook is the same player year to year and therefore it was all Durant making him look good.

Are you suggesting that it’s categorically wrong to look at how Westbrook did after Durant left in order to help infer how important he was to the Thunder’s success? That’s just silly. Obviously it is relevant. And it’s pretty obvious that the sample of years included there include some of Westbrook’s peak years. Prime Westbrook existed without Durant and the results were mediocre. That’s just objective fact.

Because he kept getting worse as a player, but 2017 he was right at his 2016 level, carried a roster bereft of other offensive production, and outplayed the MVP runner-up in their series. Your continued incapability to divorce players from team results will leave you perpetually at odds with how team sports work.

Lmfao just shamelessly lying now.

Okay, so let’s look at what you are calling “shamelessly lying.” I said the following: “in those years, Westbrook’s teams have barely performed better with him on the court than off the court.” The phrase “in those years,” was very clearly referring to the years after Durant left, because I’d just gotten finished listing his team’s results in those years.

Now, let’s consider whether that was a lie, or whether you’re being an overly aggressive internet warrior so quick to insult that you can’t even get your facts straight.

For this, we’ll turn to basketball reference. In the years I was referring to, what was Westbrook’s regular season on-off number? It was +4.1.

So a clear positive, and that is with you dishonestly treating all those years as equal rather than related to an obvious decline.
2017: +12.5
2018: +12.1
2019: +5
2020-23: -1.1 (three out of four years negative, with a slight +1.3 uptick on the Wizards.

Gee, wonder what to make of that.

And, while this is definitely a noisy, low-sample-size stat what was his playoff on-off number in those years? It was +0.6. Given those numbers—which are not very high—it it obviously not a lie to say that Westbrook’s teams barely performed better with him on the court.
Uh huh.

Did you know both Butler’s and Jokic’s teams have played 3 points better with them off the court over the past four postseasons? That is why I always go around telling people the Nuggets and Heat are better without their stars.

Again: shameless.

I guess you could argue that +4.1 shouldn’t be classified as “barely,” but it’s certainly low for a star player. Honestly, this response from you makes it pretty clear that you’re not talking in good faith or trying to be a remotely pleasant human being. I’d urge you to think about that a bit, and perhaps try to not act like this.

Galling from someone portraying 2020-23 Westbrook as any sort of star.

You know what, though, even with this blatantly bad faith framing:
2022/23 Butler — +2.9 on/off
2021-23 Booker — +4.8 on/off
2020-23 Morant — +2.4 on/off
2019-23 Trae — +3.1 on/off
2019-23 Luka — +1.1 on/off
2019-23 Beal — +1.9 on/off
2019-23 Sabonis — +1.3 on/off
2019-23 Fox — +0.9 on/off
2019-23 Lavine — -1.4 on/off
2018-23 Jaylen — +1 on/off

Insightful stuff. I am sure your concern is nothing but sincere.

How about you take another look at those on/off metrics and get back to me.

Huh? From 2009-2010 through 2015-2016, Durant had an on-off of +7.4, and Westbrook had an on-off of +3.1.

here again we see you needing to twist the years. Why 2010? What if we actually try to match this with Westbrook’s status as a superstar?
2012-16 Durant: +7
2012-16 Westbrook: +5.8
2013-16 Durant: +8.4
2013-16 Westbrook: +6.7
2014-16 Durant: +8.9
2014-16 Westbrook: +8.1
2015 Durant: +8.8
2015 Westbrook: +6.7
2016 Durant: +12.6
2016 Westbrook: +12.6

Interesting! That sure looks like a player who was so bad that he basically meant the team was on par with Hakeem’s cast. You do remember that, right?

The obviously counterpoint to that is that he had better teammates than Hakeem did in that era, and in many cases that’s true, but I think one could very reasonably take a view of Russell Westbrook that makes that gap not seem very significant for a lot of those Thunder years.

Westbrook’s on-off in the playoffs in those years was actually a bit higher (+9.0 vs. +5.1), but that’s a really low sample size of minutes (for instance, the “off” numbers for Durant in all those years is a grand total of a measly 608 minutes), and is heavily influenced by the fact that it was typically Durant that spent more time being the lone guy leading bench unit in the playoffs. Indeed, you you can look at who the 7th and 8th men in those Thunder teams played the most playoff minutes with, and it’s pretty consistent that it’s more minutes with Durant than Westbrook. And, given the difference in regular season on-off—where there’s a much more significant higher sample size of minutes—I’m not sure what point you thought would be shown here.

Lmfao man you are next level. Not even a paragraph of separation from you griefing Westbrook’s playoff on/off.

But I want to take a moment for that “Durant was sabotaged by bench minutes” idea.

2014-16 Durant/Ibaka, no Westbrook: 67 minutes, -18.62
2014-16 Westbrook/Ibaka, no Durant: 83 minutes, +1.75

2014-16 Durant/Adams, no Westbrook: 139 minutes, -6.41
2014-16 Westbrook/Adams, no Durant: 67 minutes, -2.08

2014-16 Durant/Waiters, no Westbrook: 125 minutes, -4.79
2014-16 Westbrook/Waiters, no Durant: 79 minutes, +1.55

2014-16 Durant/RJackson, no Westbrook: 118 minutes, -14.44
2014-16 Westbrook/RJackson, no Durant: 28 minutes, -5.18

Wow, poor guy sure had it rough.

Then it should be easy for you to pull up impact data discrediting his “value”.

Without Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook has had virtually zero team success in the NBA, despite playing with some really great players. He had zero 50-win seasons. He’s only made it out of the first round once without Durant. And the one series his teams have ever won without Kevin Durant was a series he didn’t even play in most of.

Yeah because 2018-23 Westbrook is very equivalent to 2012-17 Westbrook.

His regular season on-off is only +3.6. The primary case you have for there being “impact data” that suggests Westbrook is of high value is him having a +6.6 playoff on-off. But playoff on-off is a super noisy stat with low sample sizes, and +6.6 isn’t some wildly high number anyways. It’s actually kind of hard to support an argument for Westbrook as a high value guy.

Lol really bringing out career averages huh.

His teams have been subpar except with Durant, and the data doesn’t paint him as some super high impact guy either. Granted, Durant doesn’t grade out super high in on-off either, but he’s been on actually relevant teams in non-Westbrook years, while the reverse is not the case even though Westbrook has had great teammates.

Per TheSpax (for playoff filtering):
2012-16 Westbrook — +3.96 RAPM, 7th in the league
2013-17 Westbrook — +4.55 RAPM, 5th in the league
2014-18 Westbrook — +3.84 RAPM, 9th in the league

Woe is Durant, only had a top ten, borderline top five teammate. If only there were any data support.

I’m perhaps being a bit harsh on Westbrook, but I think this is important, because it seems obvious to me that a reasonable Durant > Hakeem opinion would probably require one to see Westbrook in as negative a light as is reasonably possible. And, honestly, I think there’s a reasonable case for a pretty negative view of Westbrook. He’s an incredibly flawed player who has not been able to be successfully integrated on teams with a bunch of the era’s best players.

A negative view of Westbrook downgrades him to mere all-NBA level impact, not “this guy was so deleterious that his presence basically made the team an equal supporting cast to Hakeem’s.”

If Westbrook put up those numbers you would be losing your mind.

Barkley’s TS% in that series was 57.1%. That’s against a team that gave up a 53.4% TS% that year. So, as compared to his opponent, Barkley had a TS+ of 107.

Here are Westbrook’s TS+ as compared to the opponent’s TS% given up in the series’ the Thunder lost with Durant and Westbrook:

2016 vs. Warriors: 98
2014 vs. Spurs: 105
2012 vs. Heat: 97
2011 vs. Mavs: 91
2010 vs. Lakers: 109

Even though that was an abnormally bad shooting series from Barkley, Westbrook usually scored way less efficiently in the Thunder series losses than Barkley did in that series.

Yes, Barkley was a better scorer than Westbrook. Good job. That does not mean he was more impactful as a bad defensive 4 who lacked Westbrook’s overall playmaking.

You talk about “ceiling raising” like some magic spell. Is Durant scoring better than Hakeem? Maybe, but damn high bar to clear. He is certainly not defending better than Hakeem. So apparently the idea is that he through his sheer presence lifted the efficiency of everyone else enough to make up for all defensive loss (because defence famously does not raise ceilings).

No, it’s the fact that guys who can generate their offense without needing the ball are typically better ceiling raisers than guys that need the ball, because someone who can do their work off the ball allows another star to do their work on the ball at the same time. The defense has to defend two stars doing their stuff at once, rather than just having to defend them while they take turns. That’s a huge force multiplier that makes the team exponentially harder to defend. The fact that Durant and Steph both didn’t need the ball is a HUGE part of why those Warriors teams were so dominant. A guy like Hakeem can’t provide that kind of ceiling raising. To an extent, Hakeem’s defense would lend itself to ceiling raising—since he could get big value on defense without needing the ball on offense—but it isn’t the same kind of force multiplier as having two major stars doing their thing at once on offense.

… But Durant still needs that playmaker. And for as much as you want to talk about scoring gravity, in those Spurs upsets, Westbrook was the one drawing the most attention.

the underlying conversation is literally premised upon me arguing a hypothetical that I expressly do not even agree with. Which, by the way, makes your behavior even more ridiculous—you are engaging in persistent personal insults against someone merely for suggesting that it might be possible for another person to reasonably believe something you disagree with. If you can’t control yourself in that kind of essentially purely academic exercise—where the person you are talking to has expressly stated that they ultimately actually agree with your conclusion—then there may be something deeply wrong with you.

Your hypothetical is based in a ton of your assumptions and conclusions, and that is why you are taking it personally. If this were some abstracted exercise legitimately disconnected from what you believe, you would not be so committed to defending this “purely academic exercise”. The hypothetical is only tenable from a stance that does not respect the sport. That is the point of disagreement. The comparison is not reasonable, and portraying any of the reasoning you shared as such reflects that lack of respect for what players contribute to a team’s results. What is the point in conversation with someone who talks about “advanced stats” like PER and, exactly like your ”reasonable” hypothetical person, continually prioritises some abstract sense of box production (heavily skewed by playing on the easiest circumstances in league history for three postseasons…) over holistic on-court impact?

There’s plenty that could be said in response to this. Much of what you say is misleading and/or missing the point. But the bottom line is that you are a deeply unpleasant human being who cannot stop himself from issuing a barrage of personal attacks and sarcastic remarks even after I made a post stating that I was done responding to you because of how toxic and personally insulting you were being. It is not an enjoyable use of my time to engage with someone like you. You truly need to take a look at yourself and realize that your behavior is unacceptable, and frankly a little pathetic when we realize the completely innocuous circumstances from which it arose (i.e. discussing basketball). Maybe you’re just really emotionally attached to Hakeem Olajuwon or to a dislike of Kevin Durant. I don’t know. My guess is that if I looked at your post history, I’d find you being a deeply unpleasant person about any number of subjects, because that’s usually how people that act like you are. But who knows. Maybe you’re just having a bad day, and are normally able to have civil discussion. If so, then I wish you the best. If not, then I hope you grow up a bit and start being a more pleasant person to engage with.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

#3 all time amongst Small Forwards behind the GOAT SF LBJ and #2 Larry Bird

[lessthanjake]

I don’t necessarily disagree with this stuff, but I’m not sure all of it is really on point. For instance:

1. The 2010-2014 time period wasn’t the only time period people genuinely entertained the notion that Durant might be superior to LeBron. It happened in the Warriors years too. I never agreed with it. But it was definitely out there as a minority view in a way that it never was with Hakeem and MJ. I think a lot of that is social media + irrational LeBron hatred, but not everyone would see that the same way as I do.

2. You must be talking and listening to different people than me, because, it was definitely the consensus view amongst the people I talk to, as well as sports media that I saw, that Durant was the “best player” on the Warriors, over Curry. Again, I never agreed with that sentiment *at all*, but in my experience it was *definitely* the majority view. And even if it was “pretty 50/50,” I’d say that Durant being pretty 50/50 with a guy that’s typically put above Hakeem all-time could make a reasonable person think Durant should be put above Hakeem. Again, it’s transitive property mumbo-jumbo, but not completely unreasonable, especially when all-time rankings inherently must end up involving some silly cross-era comparisons.

Ok. I think the issue I have with the stuff from point 1 is twofold. First, it's sort of relying on other people's opinions without actually providing much in the way of a basis for why they think that way, which isn't a convincing form of argument unless I know why they thought that and how they would justify it but since I'm well acquainted with all of that I can reliably say that I don't find it convincing and it's not something I see as credible for a KD>Hakeem argument. Also, something can be reasonable to someone else but that doesn't necessarily make it reasonable to me.

I think that’s a perfectly fair response. But we are ultimately talking about subjective evaluations of players, and with subjective evaluations there’s wisdom in crowds, so I don’t think relying on how the general public viewed a player would be unreasonable. One might trust one’s own subjective opinion more than anyone else’s of course, but evaluating a sports player’s greatness in part using the aggregated wisdom of the thoughts of the many people who contemporaneously watched the player is a pretty commonly used method and seem perfectly valid to me—both as a method to help evaluate players that one did not watch (guys like Wilt and Russell for most people, for instance), or to be a bit of a check on one’s own biases for players that one did actually watch.

On point 2, I still think it was roughly 50/50 by the time KD left there(with real metric/analytical based stuff pointing more towards Steph) and I also don't think Steph is typically above Hakeem so any transitive type of property doesn't work for me as a form of argument. I have Steph as being closer to Hakeem than KD but again that's not a substantive enough approach for me to say its reasonable.
Also, even box score based stuff while perhaps favoring KD has to be caveated with the knowledge that it isn't a great way to measure defense. So I'm not one of those people that is down on box score based metrics but if its a direct player comparison they need to be within a tier on defense imo for it to be somewhat valid. For instance, Kobe v KD I think is more worth comparing box score derived stuff. For someone like Hakeem, it will never capture his defensive value. So I appreciate you making the effort but I'm still of the opinion that there's no reasonable combo of criteria and numbers/proof for putting KD above Hakeem as of now.

My strong sense is that it’d be pretty rare for Hakeem to be put above Steph at this point. Obviously there’s people with idiosyncratic views and there are definitely crazier views people have than that Hakeem is greater than Steph, but I’m fairly sure that Steph is generally considered above Hakeem at this point. I guess there’s not any particularly great way to prove this point either way. Any random article ranking players is really just one person’s opinion, so hardly gets to the question much. For reference, though, here’s a site with a ranking that has been voted on by tens of thousands of people: https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-top-nba-players-of-all-time. It has Steph voted above Hakeem. Of course, it also has Hakeem above Durant, but only by a couple spots—not exactly indicative of being in a totally different stratosphere, unless we think there’s just a massive tier break right before Durant. Not sure how legit that website is, nor do I personally agree with the exact ordering of it, but it’s the best thing I can find in terms of getting at the general consensus of where these guys we are talking about stand.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think that’s a perfectly fair response. But we are ultimately talking about subjective evaluations of players, and with subjective evaluations there’s wisdom in crowds, so I don’t think relying on how the general public viewed a player would be unreasonable. One might trust one’s own subjective opinion more than anyone else’s of course, but evaluating a sports player’s greatness in part using the aggregated wisdom of the thoughts of the many people who contemporaneously watched the player is a pretty commonly used method and seem perfectly valid to me—both as a method to help evaluate players that one did not watch (guys like Wilt and Russell for most people, for instance), or to be a bit of a check on one’s own biases for players that one did actually watch.

My strong sense is that it’d be pretty rare for Hakeem to be put above Steph at this point. Obviously there’s people with idiosyncratic views and there are definitely crazier views people have than that Hakeem is greater than Steph, but I’m fairly sure that Steph is generally considered above Hakeem at this point. I guess there’s not any particularly great way to prove this point either way. Any random article ranking players is really just one person’s opinion, so hardly gets to the question much. For reference, though, here’s a site with a ranking that has been voted on by tens of thousands of people: https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-top-nba-players-of-all-time. It has Steph voted above Hakeem. Of course, it also has Hakeem above Durant, but only by a couple spots—not exactly indicative of being in a totally different stratosphere, unless we think there’s just a massive tier break right before Durant. Not sure how legit that website is, nor do I personally agree with the exact ordering of it, but it’s the best thing I can find in terms of getting at the general consensus of where these guys we are talking about stand.

The problem with consensus type opinions is that imo the average fans and even talking heads just aren't very good at this sort of stuff and quite often lack knowledge regarding older players and might barely have a methodology which they consistently apply while also making little use of newer forms of player evaluation. All of this on top of having certain players they like and can't be objective about. So that's my opinion on relying on other people's opinions at face value. Their criteria tends to be all over the place and often arguments are overly simplistic and rely too much on things like rings or their own eye test. I think this board in particular likes to focus more on tangible sort of arguments that can speak for themselves rather than what general fans think. That's sort of the point of this board is to dig deeper into all of this stuff and not to rely on overly simplistic arguments. A lot of the times its not so much about winning an argument so much as trying to learn or uncover new ways to see something.

[lessthanjake]

I think that’s a perfectly fair response. But we are ultimately talking about subjective evaluations of players, and with subjective evaluations there’s wisdom in crowds, so I don’t think relying on how the general public viewed a player would be unreasonable. One might trust one’s own subjective opinion more than anyone else’s of course, but evaluating a sports player’s greatness in part using the aggregated wisdom of the thoughts of the many people who contemporaneously watched the player is a pretty commonly used method and seem perfectly valid to me—both as a method to help evaluate players that one did not watch (guys like Wilt and Russell for most people, for instance), or to be a bit of a check on one’s own biases for players that one did actually watch.

My strong sense is that it’d be pretty rare for Hakeem to be put above Steph at this point. Obviously there’s people with idiosyncratic views and there are definitely crazier views people have than that Hakeem is greater than Steph, but I’m fairly sure that Steph is generally considered above Hakeem at this point. I guess there’s not any particularly great way to prove this point either way. Any random article ranking players is really just one person’s opinion, so hardly gets to the question much. For reference, though, here’s a site with a ranking that has been voted on by tens of thousands of people: https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-top-nba-players-of-all-time. It has Steph voted above Hakeem. Of course, it also has Hakeem above Durant, but only by a couple spots—not exactly indicative of being in a totally different stratosphere, unless we think there’s just a massive tier break right before Durant. Not sure how legit that website is, nor do I personally agree with the exact ordering of it, but it’s the best thing I can find in terms of getting at the general consensus of where these guys we are talking about stand.

The problem with consensus type opinions is that imo the average fans and even talking heads just aren't very good at this sort of stuff and quite often lack knowledge regarding older players and might barely have a methodology which they consistently apply while also making little use of newer forms of player evaluation. All of this on top of having certain players they like and can't be objective about. So that's my opinion on relying on other people's opinions at face value. Their criteria tends to be all over the place and often arguments are overly simplistic and rely too much on things like rings or their own eye test. I think this board in particular likes to focus more on tangible sort of arguments that can speak for themselves rather than what general fans think. That's sort of the point of this board is to dig deeper into all of this stuff.

I get the point you’re making, and to some extent it is right. But the fact that individual people “have certain players they like and can’t be objective about” and whatnot is actually precisely why looking at a general consensus can be helpful: With large numbers of people, the individual idiosyncratic biases will largely cancel out. And talking about general consensus is particularly relevant here, when we’re discussing merely what is within the realm of reasonable. If a reasonable argument can be made for something while simply adhering to what the general public consensus is on certain things, then I think the argument is very likely reasonable, because I don’t think we should assume that the general public consensus on something is so wrong that it’s outside the realm of reasonable. In other words, if general consensus was that Durant was as good or better than Steph when they played together, and general consensus is that Steph is superior to Hakeem, then it seems at least *within the realm of reasonable* for someone to conclude from that that Durant > Hakeem. And one does not even have to be explicitly thinking about public consensus to get to that conclusion. Someone could merely be thinking about *their own* opinions on those questions—which definitionally in many cases will match the consensus, otherwise it wouldn’t be the consensus—and draw that sort of transitive-property inference based on them.

I get that you’re bristling at this and suggesting one should want to dig deeper into stuff. And I think it’s fairly obviously I’m perfectly willing to delve deep into stuff in general. But we are having a very specific discussion, in which I am being told that it is in no way reasonable to come to a specific conclusion on an inherently subjective question. Who is “greater” is not some objective question that we can delve into data and get an objective answer to. It’s a subjective exercise, and there’s a high bar for saying that a view on a subjective question is in no way reasonable. When there’s a logical way to come to that view while merely agreeing with the general public’s views on certain questions, it seems fairly clear that that view does not meet the “in no way reasonable” bar. Thus, while I wouldn’t normally just use general-public opinion as evidence in an argument here (for the same sort of reasons you noted), I think it’s appropriate (and strong) evidence when the argument is centered around a debate about the realm of reasonableness.

This seems largely played out, though, so I don’t know that you and I have to go much further with it. You’ve been quite polite and I appreciate the discussion, though, and hope you enjoy your night!

[Cavsfansince84]

I get that you’re bristling at this and suggesting one should want to dig deeper into stuff. And I think it’s fairly obviously I’m perfectly willing to delve deep into stuff in general. But we are having a very specific discussion, in which I am being told that it is in no way reasonable to come to a specific conclusion on an inherently subjective question. Who is “greater” is not some objective question that we can delve into data and get an objective answer to. It’s a subjective exercise, and there’s a high bar for saying that a view on a subjective question is in no way reasonable. When there’s a logical way to come to that view while merely agreeing with the general public’s views on certain questions, it seems fairly clear that that view does not meet the “in no way reasonable” bar. Thus, while I wouldn’t normally just use general-public opinion as evidence in an argument here (for the same sort of reasons you noted), I think it’s appropriate (and strong) evidence when the argument is centered around a debate about the realm of reasonableness.

Ok but just keep in mind one thing about all of this which is that I don't think the goal is to find what the general consensus would find to be reasonable. It's to decide for our selves what we would find to be reasonable. So the degree to which we'd want to allow others' opinions to influence us is subjective to how we go about it. The more you have given thought to all of this and what criteria you value the easier it is to rely on them imo as opposed to what you might see in a poll.

[70sFan]

I’ll give you 2012-2014. That’s it. LeBron was better every season through 2020. Steph was better every season from 2015 on. Chris Paul was better almost every year until he hit his decline phase. Kawhi was better from 2015 on whenever he was healthy. Giannis and Jokić have been better players since their emergence in 2019 and have hit much higher heights than KD ever reached.

Since KD just gets his own shot without much passing, playmaking, or off-ball movement he has much worse impact numbers than other top players of his era. Here are the players I mentioned by simple career on/off:

Curry +11.3
LeBron +10.8
Jokic +10.6
CP3 +9.6
Giannis +6.6
Kawhi +6.3
Durant +5.7

26 year RAPM has them like this:
1. LeBron +9.1
3. Paul +8.1
6. Jokic +7.2
11. Curry +6.5
13. Giannis +6.4
18. Kawhi +5.7
28. Durant +4.7

Could you provide your top 5 for each year from 2016-22 period (excluding 2020)?

2016: LeBron, Steph, Kawhi, Dray, Westbrook
2017: LeBron, Westbrook, Steph, Kawhi, CP3
2018: LeBron, Harden, AD, Giannis, Oladipo
2019: Kawhi, Giannis, Harden, George, Steph
2021: Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Steph, Luka
2022: Jokic, Giannis, Steph, Embiid, Tatum

Thank you.

I don't see how you can have Giannis and Oladipo over Durant in 2018. I also wouldn't have Westbrook over Durant in any of these seasons realistically, but I know some people are higher on him than me.

[iggymcfrack]

Could you provide your top 5 for each year from 2016-22 period (excluding 2020)?

2016: LeBron, Steph, Kawhi, Dray, Westbrook
2017: LeBron, Westbrook, Steph, Kawhi, CP3
2018: LeBron, Harden, AD, Giannis, Oladipo
2019: Kawhi, Giannis, Harden, George, Steph
2021: Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Steph, Luka
2022: Jokic, Giannis, Steph, Embiid, Tatum

Thank you.

I don't see how you can have Giannis and Oladipo over Durant in 2018. I also wouldn't have Westbrook over Durant in any of these seasons realistically, but I know some people are higher on him than me.

If you look at 2016, Westbrook had much better box stats and on/off numbers in the playoffs than KD after being almost identical in the regular season. In the playoffs, Russ had a BPM of 9.1 and an on/off of +12.9 compared to +4.0 and +6.6 for KD. I’m a big believer that KD’s lack of playmaking, passing, and off-ball movement tend to make him much less valuable than people think though so I tend to trust the numbers when they discount his impact. In 2017, Westbrook was a deserving MVP while leading the league in both PER and BPM and having a career high in TS% making a ton of clutch shots before ultimately having an on/off of +62.8 in the playoffs while KD missed a bunch of games and finished tied for 9th in MVP votes.

I will say that in 2018, I was a lot higher on Oladipo than I would end up being later after I saw how he followed the season up. If I were to rank them now, I’d probably put Curry ahead of him for the #5 spot. But in RAPTOR which combines regular season and playoffs, if we look at averages instead of cumulative stats which will favor KD who played the least games, we end up with Curry ranking #4, Oladipo ranking #5, Giannis ranking #9, and KD ranking #13. Giannis had nearly identical box score composites to KD in the playoffs while playing much better defense after clearly being the better player on the regular season. What would be your top 5 for 2018?

[70sFan]

2016: LeBron, Steph, Kawhi, Dray, Westbrook
2017: LeBron, Westbrook, Steph, Kawhi, CP3
2018: LeBron, Harden, AD, Giannis, Oladipo
2019: Kawhi, Giannis, Harden, George, Steph
2021: Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Steph, Luka
2022: Jokic, Giannis, Steph, Embiid, Tatum

Thank you.

I don't see how you can have Giannis and Oladipo over Durant in 2018. I also wouldn't have Westbrook over Durant in any of these seasons realistically, but I know some people are higher on him than me.

If you look at 2016, Westbrook had much better box stats and on/off numbers in the playoffs than KD after being almost identical in the regular season. In the playoffs, Russ had a BPM of 9.1 and an on/off of +12.9 compared to +4.0 and +6.6 for KD. I’m a big believer that KD’s lack of playmaking, passing, and off-ball movement tend to make him much less valuable than people think though so I tend to trust the numbers when they discount his impact. In 2017, Westbrook was a deserving MVP while leading the league in both PER and BPM and having a career high in TS% making a ton of clutch shots before ultimately having an on/off of +62.8 in the playoffs while KD missed a bunch of games and finished tied for 9th in MVP votes.

I will say that in 2018, I was a lot higher on Oladipo than I would end up being later after I saw how he followed the season up. If I were to rank them now, I’d probably put Curry ahead of him for the #5 spot. But in RAPTOR which combines regular season and playoffs, if we look at averages instead of cumulative stats which will favor KD who played the least games, we end up with Curry ranking #4, Oladipo ranking #5, Giannis ranking #9, and KD ranking #13. Giannis had nearly identical box score composites to KD in the playoffs while playing much better defense after clearly being the better player on the regular season. What would be your top 5 for 2018?

Probably this order:

2018: LeBron, Harden, Durant, Curry, Davis

As I said, I am lower on Westbrook than most and I don't want to start this discussion here. Giannis wasn't as good offensively as Durant even in his peak seasons, let alone in 2018. I don't think his defense was good enough in 2018 to shorten the gap.

[iggymcfrack]

Thank you.

I don't see how you can have Giannis and Oladipo over Durant in 2018. I also wouldn't have Westbrook over Durant in any of these seasons realistically, but I know some people are higher on him than me.

If you look at 2016, Westbrook had much better box stats and on/off numbers in the playoffs than KD after being almost identical in the regular season. In the playoffs, Russ had a BPM of 9.1 and an on/off of +12.9 compared to +4.0 and +6.6 for KD. I’m a big believer that KD’s lack of playmaking, passing, and off-ball movement tend to make him much less valuable than people think though so I tend to trust the numbers when they discount his impact. In 2017, Westbrook was a deserving MVP while leading the league in both PER and BPM and having a career high in TS% making a ton of clutch shots before ultimately having an on/off of +62.8 in the playoffs while KD missed a bunch of games and finished tied for 9th in MVP votes.

I will say that in 2018, I was a lot higher on Oladipo than I would end up being later after I saw how he followed the season up. If I were to rank them now, I’d probably put Curry ahead of him for the #5 spot. But in RAPTOR which combines regular season and playoffs, if we look at averages instead of cumulative stats which will favor KD who played the least games, we end up with Curry ranking #4, Oladipo ranking #5, Giannis ranking #9, and KD ranking #13. Giannis had nearly identical box score composites to KD in the playoffs while playing much better defense after clearly being the better player on the regular season. What would be your top 5 for 2018?

Probably this order:

2018: LeBron, Harden, Durant, Curry, Davis

As I said, I am lower on Westbrook than most and I don't want to start this discussion here. Giannis wasn't as good offensively as Durant even in his peak seasons, let alone in 2018. I don't think his defense was good enough in 2018 to shorten the gap.

Curry. no Durant games in 2018
vs. MIN W by 24
@ BRK W by 7
vs CHI W by 49
vs. NOP W by 15
@ HOU W by 15
@ LAC W by 16
vs DEN W by 10
@ ATL W by 12

Durant, no Curry games in 2018
@ CHO W by 14
@ DET W by 4
vs POR W by 7
vs DAL W by 15
vs LAL W by 2
vs MEM W by 13
vs LAL W by 7
@ DEN L by 15
vs CLE W by 7
vs UTA W by 25
vs CHO L by 11
vs LAC L by 19
vs MIN W by 14
@ POR L by 17
@ MIN L by 6
vs LAL W by 11
vs MIL L by 9
vs SAC W by 16
vs PHX W by 10
@ OKC W by 4
@ IND L by 20
vs NOP L by 6
@ PHX W by 17
@ UTA L by 40
@ SAS W by 21
@ SAS W by 15
@ SAS W by 13
@ SAS L by 13
vs SAS W by 8
vs NOP W by 22

Steph missed a lot more games which is why I had him out of the top 5 initially, but if you look at the games they missed, it's clear to see who was the engine that made the team go. When KD missed games and Steph played, the Warriors were 8-0 with an average point differential of +18.5. When Steph missed games and KD played, the Warriors were 21-10 with an average point differential of +2.9. If you look at the regular season as a whole, Steph had a NetRtg of +13.2 and an on/off of +12.1 while KD had a NetRtg of +7.0 and an on/off of +1.9. Steph having almost twice the NetRtg while playing a ton of minutes together with KD is mind-boggling. KD had slightly better playoff numbers, but Steph outplayed him the 2 biggest games of the season when it mattered most facing elimination against Houston.

In the regular season, the Pacers with Oladipo on the floor had a NetRtg of +6.4 even though Darren Collison and Thaddeus Young were their 2 best players. The Warriors with Durant on the floor playing with the best supporting cast in NBA history had a NetRtg of +7.0. In the playoffs, the Pacers were +11.1 with Oladipo on the floor and the Warriors were +12.5 with KD on the floor. The fact that Oladipo made a **** Pacers squad almost as good as an insanely loaded Ws squad when they were both on the floor makes me think that having him ahead of KD is a very reasonable position. Oladipo should also get more credit for being more durable and playing more games and minutes during the regular season.

[70sFan]

Curry. no Durant games in 2018
vs. MIN W by 24
@ BRK W by 7
vs CHI W by 49
vs. NOP W by 15
@ HOU W by 15
@ LAC W by 16
vs DEN W by 10
@ ATL W by 12

Durant, no Curry games in 2018
@ CHO W by 14
@ DET W by 4
vs POR W by 7
vs DAL W by 15
vs LAL W by 2
vs MEM W by 13
vs LAL W by 7
@ DEN L by 15
vs CLE W by 7
vs UTA W by 25
vs CHO L by 11
vs LAC L by 19
vs MIN W by 14
@ POR L by 17
@ MIN L by 6
vs LAL W by 11
vs MIL L by 9
vs SAC W by 16
vs PHX W by 10
@ OKC W by 4
@ IND L by 20
vs NOP L by 6
@ PHX W by 17
@ UTA L by 40
@ SAS W by 21
@ SAS W by 15
@ SAS W by 13
@ SAS L by 13
vs SAS W by 8
vs NOP W by 22

Steph missed a lot more games which is why I had him out of the top 5 initially, but if you look at the games they missed, it's clear to see who was the engine that made the team go. When KD missed games and Steph played, the Warriors were 8-0 with an average point differential of +18.5. When Steph missed games and KD played, the Warriors were 21-10 with an average point differential of +2.9.

I think raw point differential is pointless in such a small sample of size, you need to adjust for opponents faced. Warriors without Durant faced playoff teams only three times out of 8 and outside of Houston, none of these teams were strong at all. The sample is also heavily influenced by the massive blowout against the Bulls (win by 49 points doesn't happen often).

If you look at the regular season as a whole, Steph had a NetRtg of +13.2 and an on/off of +12.1 while KD had a NetRtg of +7.0 and an on/off of +1.9. Steph having almost twice the NetRtg while playing a ton of minutes together with KD is mind-boggling.

I never denied that Curry was more impactful RS player for the Warriors and that he was the offensive engine of this team, but he also missed a lot of games so even if you think that Curry was clearly more valuable, it doesn't mean he accumulated more value throughout the whole season.

KD had slightly better playoff numbers, but Steph outplayed him the 2 biggest games of the season when it mattered most facing elimination against Houston.

I strongly disagree with such point of view. Every game in the close series matter. Without Durant's strong performance in game 1, there could be no game 6 for Curry to perform well at all.

Overall, I don't find Curry that impressive in 2018 playoffs. He missed the whole first round and was very streaky throughout the rest of the playoffs. If you also value raw on/off data, then Durant looks like a clear most valuable Warriors player in the playoffs.

I don't think Curry has any reasonable case over Durant in 2018, unless you simply rank players based on potential and other surrounding years.

In the regular season, the Pacers with Oladipo on the floor had a NetRtg of +6.4 even though Darren Collison and Thaddeus Young were their 2 best players. The Warriors with Durant on the floor playing with the best supporting cast in NBA history had a NetRtg of +7.0. In the playoffs, the Pacers were +11.1 with Oladipo on the floor and the Warriors were +12.5 with KD on the floor. The fact that Oladipo made a **** Pacers squad almost as good as an insanely loaded Ws squad when they were both on the floor makes me think that having him ahead of KD is a very reasonable position.

Yeah, that is not how on/off numbers should be used at all.

Oladipo should also get more credit for being more durable and playing more games and minutes during the regular season.

Point for him, but he wasn't good enough to close the gap.

[AEnigma]

In the regular season, the Pacers with Oladipo on the floor had a NetRtg of +6.4 even though Darren Collison and Thaddeus Young were their 2 best players. The Warriors with Durant on the floor playing with the best supporting cast in NBA history had a NetRtg of +7.0.

Not really the best supporting cast once Curry starts missing that many games, but in general I agree this is an advantage for Oladipo.

In the playoffs, the Pacers were +11.1 with Oladipo on the floor and the Warriors were +12.5 with KD on the floor. The fact that Oladipo made a **** Pacers squad almost as good as an insanely loaded Ws squad when they were both on the floor makes me think that having him ahead of KD is a very reasonable position.

Well, okay, no, Oladipo was +11.1 in 7 games against the Cavaliers (and because these are small samples, that is pretty much all coming from three games), and the Warriors were +12.5 against the Spurs (no Curry), Pelicans, Rockets, and Cavaliers.

Although I think you are (per usual) excessively relying on all-in-ones to make this point and are not giving much consideration to the basketball being played… on the scale of “reasonability”, it is far from the worst offender in this thread, and you did not need to manufacture nearly as much hate-fiction to support it.

[OhayoKD]

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.

… Because none of them were 10 SRS teams without the star in question. That is a complete false equivalence, not “charity”.

The Moses Malone Sixers had just lost in the finals the year before Malone went there. The Showtime Lakers made the finals when Kareem was no longer there (not to mention won a title when Kareem was a 41 year old 12 PER role player).

[/quote][/quote]
Both the fo fo fo Sixers and the Showtime Lakers obliterated the field in their first rodeo with both stars with neither being as competitive as the pre-Durant Warriors. Neither team had a tertiary superstar like Draymond who could literally lead the team past playoff opponents without Steph(2016), post better regular-season and playoff impact over sustained periods, and outright outplay Steph in a 7-game finals.

Miami was nowhere near as good(.500 with bosh and wade and no lebron if you go by lineup-ratings, worse if you go by WOWY) but were still dominant in 2012 with all 3 playing in the lineup and then beat an all-time opponent in 2013(the 13 Spurs were emperically as good or better than the 90 Pistons with similar "ensemble" casts).

What exactly do you consider unprecedented about what Durant did?

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.

Oh well that changes it. A couple of other teams could play them evenly, therefore, does not really matter that they added a top five player (taken off one of those somewhat even teams).

4 SRS lift for one season is not any sort of historical outlier, no, regardless of dressing that up as “ceiling raising”.

Yes, actually it does change it. The Warriors went from, by your own admission “a couple of other teams could play them evenly” to no one being able to play them even close, including the same team that played them evenly and had won.

[/quote]
Which is again, not unprecedented.

but another reading is that that’s because no one’s been quite the ceiling raiser that Durant (and Curry, of course) was.

That reading collapses when you look at 2018 and 2019 where the Warriors, despite Durant clearly having the best help of any superstar, were played evenly by the rockets with KD on the floor and on-pace to lose before the Rockets lost their second-best player.

I don’t think you’re actually reading my point. Are you denying that the 2015 and 2016 Warriors benefited massively from being way ahead of the tactical curve?

They played like a 67-win team by srs(70 by record) in a substantial sample without Durant in 2017 too. Not to mention getting back to "only a couple teams could beat us" in 2019 when KD went out and with klay and looney suffering injuries.

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.

Ah right, I forgot to make the case for Durant, we also need to pretend that the only relevant consideration is their scoring.

Did Durant play badly in that series beyond scoring? No. Durant objectively had a really good series in that 2012 Finals. And so that’s a very good answer to your question of whether Durant had losses in series’ where he played really well. There’s other examples too, of course—such as the 2021 series against Milwaukee.

Uh...negative defense on-top, and posting a higher tov% than ast% as a tertiary playmaker and ball-handler(lower usage than pre-kerr steph) who isn't even being keyed in on(heat said they focused on Harden) is pretty bad yeah. What about KD's game was good outside of scoring. 2021 is the best performance of Durant's career and he was still outscored by a two-way big in 4 out of 7 games while creating less and being a much less valuable defender.

As is, in 2013 and 2014 more polished versions of Durant could not come close to putting 2012 Durant's playoff scoring with typical superstar responsbilities(secondary ball-handler/playmaker). Was that because KD suddenly became worse?

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.

His co-star was the one drawing the Spurs attention. “Bad series”, Westbrook was the guy creating all the easy looks for Durant!

We know Durant thrives in that environment. The question is what happens when it stops being easy.

Please. I get that Westbrook did some good stuff in that series, but a guy who was shooting high volume with a 47.9% TS% and also turned the ball over 4.5 times a game had a bad series. It was obviously not completely catastrophic or they couldn’t have won against such a great team, but please don’t try to suggest that Westbrook was a major reason they won

Westbrook posted a 55ast%:8tov% in what by box would be in the running for best playmaking series ever. Incidentally all of Westbrook's teammates, including Durant, saw their true-shooting skyrocket despite shooting poorly from 3. How is Westbrook drawing triples, posting goat-tier playmaking numbers, and specifically creating the most easy- possible shots(open 2's) not a "major reason" for them winning?

Ralph Sampson was more than just good in college. He was an all-star for four straight years—three of them with Hakeem.

[/quote]
Yeah, but that just tells us how good people thought he was. The 87 Rockets were virtually unaffected by Sampson missing half the season.

I would love for you to explain to me how Russell Westbrook was comparably impactful to Durant.

You mean besides Westbrook posting better playoff-box in 14/16(account for playmaking and he's more "effecient" too), raw +/-, adjusted +/-, and box-stabalized plus-minus?(aupm)

How about the only series from 14/16 where KD has a clear statistical advantage being the one where Westbrook was banged up and OKC nearly lost to a non-contender?

Or Westbrook having better playoff on/off over their entire OKC stint?

Yes, inefficiency is bad. As are lots of turnovers. It doesn’t make someone a box-score-watching robot to recognize that.

Westbrook was more efficient in 14 and 16 by box if you account for playmaking. He was also drawing more defensive attention in 2016 and Westbrook vs KD was being debated as early as of 2014.

The idea KD was carrying those teams is a revisionist narrative that emerged after Durant put up numbers on single coverage vs a mediocre Cleveland Defense anchored by a 32-year old on crazy milage.

Without Durant the 2015 Thunder played like a 48-win team with everyone healthy and that was with RS Westbrook. With Westbrook scaling up massively in the postseason, I'm not sure how you can say those teams were anything but stacked.

[Asianiac_24]

10-15, around where Kobe/Curry is.

[lessthanjake]

Just came across this in another thread about something different, and thought it was worth noting here:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/33297498/the-nba-75th-anniversary-team-ranked-where-76-basketball-legends-check-our-list

As many here surely know, back in 2022, for the NBA’s 75th anniversary, ESPN did a top 75 all-time list that they had what they call an “expert panel” vote on (how “expert” the people on the panel really were is almost certainly up for debate, but at the very least the rankings weren’t just one person’s opinion and were opinions of a bunch of people who make a living watching/covering the sport). It had Kevin Durant at #12, and indeed had him just above Hakeem Olajuwon. I *certainly* don’t think we should take ESPN lists as the gospel, but I think this highlights the fact that it wouldn’t be *outside the realm of reasonableness* to have Durant ranked ahead of Hakeem. I think we’re losing the plot a bit if people are so hardened in their subjective evaluations that they are insisting (in certain cases quite aggressively) that it would be impossible to reasonably come to a conclusion that has actually ended up in something like this. You don’t have to agree with it (I don’t either!), but the realm of reasonableness goes well beyond your own specific views!

[AEnigma]

A bunch of people believing something does not make it reasonable, no. And I think that list is self-evident why in many instances beyond where they unreasonably placed Durant and Hakeem.

Legitimately baffling how you can take an aggregate ranking with Iverson at #31, Jerry Lucas at #46, and Pete Maravich at #54 and say, yep, sure seems reasonable.

[Cavsfansince84]

Just came across this in another thread about something different, and thought it was worth noting here:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/33297498/the-nba-75th-anniversary-team-ranked-where-76-basketball-legends-check-our-list

As many here surely know, back in 2022, for the NBA’s 75th anniversary, ESPN did a top 75 all-time list that they had what they call an “expert panel” vote on (how “expert” the people on the panel really were is almost certainly up for debate, but at the very least the rankings weren’t just one person’s opinion and were opinions of a bunch of people who make a living watching/covering the sport). It had Kevin Durant at #12, and indeed had him just above Hakeem Olajuwon. I *certainly* don’t think we should take ESPN lists as the gospel, but I think this highlights the fact that it wouldn’t be *outside the realm of reasonableness* to have Durant ranked ahead of Hakeem. I think we’re losing the plot a bit if people are so hardened in their subjective evaluations that they are insisting (in certain cases quite aggressively) that it would be impossible to reasonably come to a conclusion that has actually ended up in something like this. You don’t have to agree with it (I don’t either!), but the realm of reasonableness goes well beyond your own specific views!

Wouldn't a similar methodology also mean it was reasonable to believe that the Sun circled the Earth back in the 16th century? I would say if you aren't really into player evaluation and dedicating yourself to actually learning how to use metrics and other things then having a criteria which I would see as decently reasonable(which Giannis coming in at 18 there tells me that any sort of prime longevity was not high at all on most of the voters criteria) then having KD higher than Hakeem is reasonable.
I think there is a bit of gulf though when it comes to just covering the nba or being an ex player and really being willing to take many things into consideration and putting enough time into it to have a good idea of how to balance so many factors such as primes, peak, longevity, intangibles and team success on top of the numbers/metric side of it. I think you're kind of coming into this like we're mainly just fans who like to compare players when a lot of people on this board have put considerably large amounts of time into trying to learn how to evaluate players in the best way possible and also expanding our knowledge enough that we can do so for players from 6-7 decades ago.
So no I simply cannot sit here and agree with you or anyone else who want to think that these media types who are asked to take part in these polls have even put a fraction of the time into this kind of thing that many posters on this board have who have been doing it as a hobby for anywhere from 5 to 30 years. What makes something reasonable is subjective based upon our own understanding of the said thing.