MyUniBroDavis wrote:Deleted because this might lead to a stupid conversation
Too late. Though I agree, he'd kill lot of these guys in a 1 on 1. Kawhi could take him certainly. I dunno, maybe 70s fan actually thinks West would beat Durant one on one.
Maybe peak Kawhi would beat 2014, apparently bron did that year, but warriors KD was noticeably stronger and bulkier from what I remember, bron wasnt able to overpower him when they matched up iirc it was more so using transition or ball screens, when he tried to post up KD he couldn’t back him down all too much.
You can’t really guard peak KD one on one, it’s a cliche saying but it’s even more so. If he has a live dribble you got a better shot maybe but in the context of how one on ones are usually played it just isn’t gonna happen. These guys don’t shoot 35-40% on reasonably well contested midrange jumpers one on one, probably more 55-60%
One_and_Done wrote:Too late. Though I agree, he'd kill lot of these guys in a 1 on 1. Kawhi could take him certainly. I dunno, maybe 70s fan actually thinks West would beat Durant one on one.
No, I don't think West would beat Durant one on one, definitely not more times than not.
I think we don't know anything about players capabilities to play one on one games to be honest. Usually the bigger and stronger guy wins serious 1 on 1 game, assuming that both can play of course.
Just to be clear here how many times if they play 100 do you think they each win? 21 unlimited dribbles
I have no idea, just like I have no idea how many times someone like Paolo Banchero could beat Durant one on one. We have heard many anecdotes of roleplayers getting better of stars in 1 on 1 pickups.
My completly uneducated guess is that Durant would have won the clear majority of these matchups, especially with modern officiating. I can't say anything else in this matter.
One_and_Done wrote:I'd rather take their whole prime playoffs as the best sample actually. You're the one taking only the limited sample of the playoffs, then limiting it even further to give Dirk an edge. We shouldn't limit it to playoffs either, except KD kills Dirk in the regular season as well.
I literally posted their whole prime numbers both for RS and PS, why do you keep accusing me of manipulating stats?
70sFan wrote:No, I don't think West would beat Durant one on one, definitely not more times than not.
I think we don't know anything about players capabilities to play one on one games to be honest. Usually the bigger and stronger guy wins serious 1 on 1 game, assuming that both can play of course.
Just to be clear here how many times if they play 100 do you think they each win? 21 unlimited dribbles
I have no idea, just like I have no idea how many times someone like Paolo Banchero could beat Durant one on one. We have heard many anecdotes of roleplayers getting better of stars in 1 on 1 pickups.
My completly uneducated guess is that Durant would have won the clear majority of these matchups, especially with modern officiating. I can't say anything else in this matter.
You're being generous, every once in a while a high school prospect comes out and beats NBA players 1 on 1.
About 2018 Cavs:
euroleague wrote:His team would be considered a super-team in other eras, and that's why commentators like Charles Barkley criticize LBJ for his complaining. He has talent on his team, he just doesn't try during the regular season
One_and_Done wrote:I'd rather take their whole prime playoffs as the best sample actually. You're the one taking only the limited sample of the playoffs, then limiting it even further to give Dirk an edge. We shouldn't limit it to playoffs either, except KD kills Dirk in the regular season as well.
I literally posted their whole prime numbers both for RS and PS, why do you keep accusing me of manipulating stats?
And they favoured Durant.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:I'd rather take their whole prime playoffs as the best sample actually. You're the one taking only the limited sample of the playoffs, then limiting it even further to give Dirk an edge. We shouldn't limit it to playoffs either, except KD kills Dirk in the regular season as well.
I literally posted their whole prime numbers both for RS and PS, why do you keep accusing me of manipulating stats?
And they favoured Durant.
Without any contextualizing, yes they look better. You said it's useless to use such arguments though.
basically all of your examples are "they were injured", which would seem the point of the phrase "given the circumstances". and the other 2 are "they went as far as you could expect, but not in a good way", which is probably not the general point of saying someone underperformed (if i guess at OaD's meaning).
The general point of saying someone underperformed is that they underperformed, not that they "underperformed to a degree that prevented what would have otherwise been a championship". "otherwise would have been a championship" is a matter of luck and timing, not KD's qualities as a player.
If the 9 SRS Thunder getting thumped by +4 srs team(who proceed to lose by 11-points a game to a non-champion) is not an underperformance, then maybe the "is westbrook the real mvp" conversations should have started a year earlier.
As it so happens, in the first round, OKC went from outscoring the +3.6 srs Rockets by 16 points over 2 games with westbrook to...playing them dead-even(2-2, 1> point differential) without.
IOW, regardless of KD's numbers(which proceeded to historically collapse against Memphis), when Westbrook wasn't on the floor, the Thunder were big underperformers. When westbrook was on they performed.
Just like in 2014 where they undeperformed in the 1st round with westbrook hobbled and then overachieved the next two with westbrook running the show.
Incidentally it was Westbrook who posted the gaudy playoff impact. Westbrook who posted record-breaking creation metrics, and Westbrook who Popavich decided was more important to stop in 2016 when he put Kawhi on him and had the Spurs deter him with three-man walls while leaving everyone else(including KD) in single coverage.
Also no. The 2019 Warriors underperformed with KD in the games he played in. The 2018 Warriors underperformed vs the only team that could realistically challenge them(that sentence is not contingent on kd being the superstar who joined). That leaves 2017 where Durant wasn't even his team's best scorer for not one, not two, but three of four rounds of the playoffs. Against every defense except for the one that was the worst suited to guard him, KD wasn't even his team's primary at the one thing he's elite at
And then there are the stats...
What's also annoying is his non-GSW stats are still better than guys we have already voted in, as is what he accomplished with his teams, so why is he getting a demerit for it. I have no idea how anyone can attribute the OKC success to KD, when they were 25-11 without him in 2014 and KD was killing it. KD was clearly the driver of winning on those teams.
And then there's the blatant double-standard where westbrook is dismissed because what kd does without him in the regular season while conveniently ignoring that the Warriors won at a 65-win pace without him in the year he broke through...
I think what you meant to say was that KD's "scoring stats" are better than *some of the guys who voted in a list full of vastly better defenders and vastly better playmakers(and there are many of those who aren't even nominated yet).
The KD defenders keep trumpeting slashlines(or better yet, just post his ppg) to make assertions like "kd was arguably better than steph" and "kd went toe to toe with lebron" as if great scoring and limited everything else is what generates top offenses.
But the best regular season offenses ever come from magic and nash. The best playoff offenses ever come from magic, nash, and Lebron. Nash and Magic are both much better playmakers than scorers. They dominate play-val and passer-rating and box-creation. Not PPG or TS ADD or true-shooting. They also are great ball-handlers who organize their teammates and have everything run through them.
Despite this, no one defending Durant in this thread has bothered to address durant's playoff efficiency skyrocketing when he was the third-on-ball dude in 2012 and only returning when he was third again in Golden State. Nor do they address how his assists/ast% often go down when he faces extra-coverage and up when he is demonstrably creating less for his teammates.
Is your eye-test just a "hesi-tween-splash" test?
If you have to pretend 5 games vs the defense that was the least suited to guard him was a "boss battle" to defend him as an 'arguable #1', then KD wasn't a #1. If you have to ignore KD getting creamed by Lebron on every front that isn't ppg and ts to pretend they were "toe to toe", then KD was not going toe to toe. If the only way to defend KD is to cherrypick what you like and pretend everything else doesn't matter, then KD does not belong in this conversation.
PS: this is not serious
certainly seem to indicate the problem was the lack of spacing and sub-optimal support cast in OKC.
2016 really underscores how bad the fit around KD was. Instead of shooters, he had a starting line-up of Adams, Ibaka, Roberson and Russell. The 2nd best shooter on the team after KD was Ibaka. That’s terrible. In hindsight it’s amazing KD was able to get them so close to taking out the 73 Warriors to begin with. The Thunder teams lacked the balance and depth those Mavs teams tended to have (and often the high end of the Mavs teams rivalled some of those Thunder teams).
[/quote] First, off, Durant was not carrying scrubs. That sub-optimal supporting cast played at a 48-win pace at full-strength without Durant in 2015. That was a relative down-year in terms of support. And it's telling they were post such high regular-season marks despite Durant pretty much never grading out as one of the best of the best in impact.
You bring up the 2014 regular-season(which was, to be clear, alot worse by srs than what Durant was doing with Westbrook in 2013). butw hen he didn't have westbrook, KD was stuck in dead-heats vs the +3 srs rockets(6 points worse) and getting whopped by the +4 grizzlies. OKC was relatively untalented when it came to scoring. But your teammates do not need to score a bunch to offer strong support or to function well without you. OKC were capable of both.
This also ties into what is honestly a bastardization of the term "fit". "Fit" is not a matter of how many points your teammates put up or how much spacing they offer. Fit is a question of how well they --fit-- around your strengths and weaknesses and here you are reaching about a mile and a half.
KD, as noted earlier, is generally very bad at retaining efficiency when he's asked to do things with the ball(other than shoot). He's also generally pretty bad about upping his volume when his teammates don't shoot much. He's also, relative to his size and position, a weak rebounder, with limited scoring gravity.
So who did Presti draft?
A volume scorer with goated(for position) rebounding, a shitton of rim-gravity. who also happens to be an excellent ball-handler, and one of the best passers ever. Wow. What a horrible fitting co-star!
Bonus: He's also an all-time playoff elevator who ups his numbers and impact against the best teams. Might be useful if the guy "driving" things does this:
Spoiler:
(regular season)
(playoffs)
Also yeah, the OKC were not so good at scoring and shooting...which should make KD super valuable to them!
They were also good at...defense, rebounding, inside-scoring, passing, ball-handling, and for some of those years...they were also really deep. OKC covered all his weaknesses, and were reliant on his strengths, and were pretty good without him...but they lacked spacing! Truly the hardest road.
He only played in arguably the best situation in the league. Clearly an unrepresentative sample. The only way we can fairly assess Durant is by taking his slashlines and box-whatever at face-value when he goes to the best situation ever.
Also please don't talk about the rockets. Or the regular-season. Or his scoring numbers in 3 of 4 rounds in the playoffs. Or his RAPM. Or his on/off. Or his non-scoring role/responsibilities on the Warriors, or anything that's happened after(unless it's his 2 great games against the Bucks...)
Yeah, sorry, but this revisionism is getting old. If you want to pretend Durant was a much better player in San Franciso. Fine. You want to talk about his great per and game-score on a 73-win team? whatever. But stop trying to rewrite what happened before this inexplicable jump.
Durant had a great team with talented players that fit around his strengths and weaknesses including a "chucker" co-star his teams feel off massively without. Moreover in the "boss battles", it was his teammate that drove OKC while Durant regressed. Sure, KD did alright in the regular-season. But once the playoffs rolled around, it was Westbrook who went nova, while Durant went Scottie.
Durant is simply one of the least resilient superstars ever. And that probably has something to do with him being one of the most one-dimensional. He is also a strong candidate for greatest stat-padder ever, and very much belongs in the conversation for "most overrated", with nonsense like "went toe to toe with Lebron", "arguably the best player on the greatest team ever", and "was a shoe-size away from beating the bucks by himself" being the centerpieces of his legacy
Frankly, if you're considering hesi tween pip this high, then maybe you'd be better off just voting in the original article. 6 is bigger than 2. And risers are generally better than wilters.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:Deleted because this might lead to a stupid conversation
Too late. Though I agree, he'd kill lot of these guys in a 1 on 1. Kawhi could take him certainly. I dunno, maybe 70s fan actually thinks West would beat Durant one on one.
No, I don't think West would beat Durant one on one, definitely not more times than not.
I think we don't know anything about players capabilities to play one on one games to be honest. Usually the bigger and stronger guy wins serious 1 on 1 game, assuming that both can play of course.
When the NBA actually ran a one on one competition in 72 and 73, Bob Lanier did win the first one, though the other finalist was guard JoJo White. Then in 73 guard Geoff Petrie beat reserve swingman Barry Clemens in the finals so apparently guards do quite well. Also, that was without a 3 point line which would be a major advantage for smaller players today.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
One_and_Done wrote:Too late. Though I agree, he'd kill lot of these guys in a 1 on 1. Kawhi could take him certainly. I dunno, maybe 70s fan actually thinks West would beat Durant one on one.
No, I don't think West would beat Durant one on one, definitely not more times than not.
I think we don't know anything about players capabilities to play one on one games to be honest. Usually the bigger and stronger guy wins serious 1 on 1 game, assuming that both can play of course.
When the NBA actually ran a one on one competition in 72 and 73, Bob Lanier did win the first one, though the other finalist was guard JoJo White. Then in 73 guard Geoff Petrie beat reserve swingman Barry Clemens in the finals so apparently guards do quite well. Also, that was without a 3 point line which would be a major advantage for smaller players today.
Wasn't the bracket set-up so a small vs big final was inevitable
One_and_Done wrote:The stats are part of the data. When they're better that is notable.
Is it notable when Stockton has that argument over your top 50 players?
It might be if it was actually true. Of course we still have to adjust for the era he played in, as I noted in this thread Stockton would be worse today
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
70sFan wrote:No, I don't think West would beat Durant one on one, definitely not more times than not.
I think we don't know anything about players capabilities to play one on one games to be honest. Usually the bigger and stronger guy wins serious 1 on 1 game, assuming that both can play of course.
When the NBA actually ran a one on one competition in 72 and 73, Bob Lanier did win the first one, though the other finalist was guard JoJo White. Then in 73 guard Geoff Petrie beat reserve swingman Barry Clemens in the finals so apparently guards do quite well. Also, that was without a 3 point line which would be a major advantage for smaller players today.
Wasn't the bracket set-up so a small vs big final was inevitable
What's your source for this?
As best I can tell, no ... (per https://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1935) Lanier seemingly went through Maravich (guard) P Silas (p. forward) Newlin (guard) Riordan (swingman) White (guard)
Lanier seems like the last true big (at a glance) after Kauffman, Silas and Lucas got took out in the second round. Hawkins, if he counts, went a round longer. I'll take that back, checked up on Garfield Smith (also lasting to the third round), as I didn't recognize the name - he seems to be a PF(/C).
Just to be clear here how many times if they play 100 do you think they each win? 21 unlimited dribbles
I have no idea, just like I have no idea how many times someone like Paolo Banchero could beat Durant one on one. We have heard many anecdotes of roleplayers getting better of stars in 1 on 1 pickups.
My completly uneducated guess is that Durant would have won the clear majority of these matchups, especially with modern officiating. I can't say anything else in this matter.
You're being generous, every once in a while a high school prospect comes out and beats NBA players 1 on 1.
Now, these are similar caliber offensive players [By the Box Score, which is where I assume you are getting "Malone is much better in the RS] in the regular season, but come playoffs, these two players are extremely far apart.
When we look at why Malone struggled in the post-season, at first glance, you may be thinking FTR, but that wasn't actually the case. Where Malone's game struggled in the post-season was simply scoring from the Field. His FG% drops from 53% in the RS to 47% in the PS. That's a massive drop.
Dirk, on the other hand, see's a minor dip in FG% [51% eFG% in RS, 48% eFG% in PS] but his FTR sky-rockets, from just 38% in the RS to 47% in the PS. This single-handedly shows that Dirk can essentially be RS Malone in the PS [Comparing FTR here] against great defenses while Malone simply struggles.
Here are the main, basic principals/points I would put forth for Dirk.
-Dirk has a skill-set that could scale up in the post-season, Malone didn't. -Dirk was able to prove he could be successful in the post-season with a co-star [Nash] and two separate collectives as supporting casts, Malone always had Stockton. -The Regular Season Primes are similar, the Post Season Primes are not similar [heavily slanted in Dirk's favor]. -I don't really care about how the media perceived these players [MVP Votes, Regarded as a playoff failure, ect]
Playoff Scoring
Dirk Nowitzki (2001-11):
RS: 37.4 mpg, 8.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.0 tov, 24.3 ppg on 47.9% FG, 38.5% 3FG, 88.2% FT and 58.6% TS (+5.43% rTS) Against Bad Defenses (4.03% of playoffs games): 42.4 mpg, 11.8 rpg, 1.4 apg, 1.2 tov, 26.6 ppg on 45.0% FG, 46.7% 3FG, 85.7% FT and 56.1% TS (+4.53% rTS) Against Average Defenses (48.39% of playoffs games): 41.7 mpg, 10.4 rpg, 2.7 apg, 2.5 tov, 27.4 ppg on 46.7% FG, 39.1% 3FG, 88.4% FT, 59.4% TS (+6.08% rTS) Against Good Defenses (19.35% of playoffs games): 40.6 mpg, 9.8 rpg, 2.6 apg, 2.5 tov, 25.8 ppg on 46.8% FG, 45.9% 3FG 94.5% FT and 57.8% TS (+4.38% rTS) Against Elite Defenses (28.23% of playoffs games): 41.1 mpg, 10.6 rpg, 2.6 apg, 2.0 tov, 23.4 ppg on 45.5% FG, 29.3% 3FG, 88.4% FT and 57.4% TS (+4.41% rTS) Against All-Time Great Defenses (0.00% of playoffs games): --
Karl Malone (1989-01):
RS: 37.9 mpg, 10.4 rpg, 3.7 apg, 3.0 tov, 26.9 ppg on 52.6% FG, 75.9% FT and 59.1% TS (+5.98% rTS) Against Bad Defenses (3.50% of playoffs games): 39.8 mpg, 12.6 rpg, 1.6 apg, 2.8 tov, 26.6 ppg on 46.1% FG, 83.0% FT and 54.2% TS (+1.81% rTS) Against Average Defenses (33.57% of playoffs games): 41.0 mpg, 11.1 rpg, 3.0 apg, 3.0 tov, 28.6 ppg on 47.9% FG, 78.9% FT, 55.5% TS (+2.58% rTS) Against Good Defenses (21.68% of playoffs games): 41.6 mpg, 11.5 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.9 tov, 26.5 ppg on 43.7% FG, 80.5% FT and 52.5% TS (-0.79 rTS%) Against Elite Defenses (41.26% of playoffs games): 41.7 mpg, 11.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, 2.7 tov, 25.4 ppg on 46.8% FG, 67.0% FT and 51.5% TS (-1.56% rTS)
Dirk Offensive Efficiency
2002 Mavs +7.7 rORtg in reg. season (1st) & +9.0 rORtg in playoffs 2003 Mavs +7.1 rORtg in reg. season (1st) & +11.9 rORtg in playoffs 2004 Mavs +9.0 rORtg in reg. season (1st) & -2.0 rORtg in playoffs (let's face it, this season should've never happened, ) 2005 Mavs +4.2 rORtg in reg. season (4th) & +9.1 rORtg in playoffs 2006 Mavs +5.6 rORtg in reg. season (1st) & +7.9 rORtg in playoffs 2007 Mavs +4.8 rORtg in reg. season (2nd) & -0.8 rORtg in playoffs 2008 Mavs +3.6 rORtg in reg. season (8th) & +3.8 rORtg in playoffs 2009 Mavs +2.2 rORtg in reg. season (6th) & +7.4 rORtg in playoffs 2010 Mavs +1.6 rORtg in reg. season (10th) & +1.3 rORtg in playoffs 2011 Mavs +2.4 rORtg in reg. season (8th) & +7.3 rORtg in playoffs
On average, Dirk led +4.8 rORtg offense in regular seasons and +7.3 rORtg offense in playoffs over a decade.
Dirk compared to Bird/Kobe [Quick reference]
The comparison between Kobe
From 2001-2012 Dirk averaged 25.9 points on 58.4 TS% in the post-season. During this stretch Dirk shot ~46% from mid-range and 38.4% from 3. His Individual Ortg/Drtg splits paint him at 118/107 [+11] during that span.
From 2000-2012 Kobe averaged 27.7 points on 54.3 TS% in the post-season. During this stretch Kobe shot ~42% from mid-range and 33.4% from 3. His individual Ortg/Drtg splits paint him at 110/106 [+4] during that span.
bmoretalksball wrote:Vote - Dirk Nowitzki Alt Vote - Kevin Durant Nomination - Dwyane Wade Alt Nomination - Charles Barkley
Honestly, I parrot a lot of the sounder reasonings for both Dirk and KD to be the next additions on this list, and while I could go into more detail regarding why'd vote for them, I'd much rather allocate time to explain my reasoning for having Wade as my nomination, and why he's more than worthy of consideration.
To preface my reasoning, I do admittedly have a more peak and prime-quality oriented perspective than most. Within that context, Wade is a more than clear nominee. Comparing Wade's 3-season apex to some contemporaries shows that, in a vacuum at the very least, didn't lag *too far* behind players already voted, and some of their 3-season apexes around the same time period:
Obviously, Wade has a well-documented injury history that prevented his career from producing enough quality (rather, high quality) seasons to be featured as more of a top 12-15 player. However, I think when comparing his apex to some of the players already ranked on the list, the current pool of nominees, and among the pool of players soon to be anointed to the voting pool, I think he stacks up favorably pared to many, and that HAS to mean something in regard to his placement on such a list.
I'm afraid you're going to have to participation for a good while without voting before I add you to the voter list. Nothing personal - I think your post here is solid.
