Where Does Kevin Durant Rank All Time?

[ArksNetsSince99]

Kinda crazy that KD has only won 1 MVP.

Kinda crazy that he won even one

Basketball skills he might be top 30

Leadership, BB IQ and ability to play within a team he’s not even top 150 in the league , rather rock bottom of the league

[DaPessimist]

Including guys in the league today I would put him in the 17-19 range.

[HMFFL]

I say top 5, he's proven he's GOAT level

(now is my time to decloak as a KD burner )

no but for real peak KD is probably right there with almost anyone. just incredible. Anything less than top 15 is silly to me.

I think fans haven't given him his proper respect for being a super hard worker and respecting the game because of all the other stuff.

I don’t think it’s silly to leave him out of the top 15. People have been posting his resume, but everyone in the top 20 has a stacked resume. I think a list like this is reasonable:

1. Jordan
2. Lebron
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5. Wilt
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Duncan
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe
11. Shaq
12. Curry
13. Moses Malone
14. Dr. J
15. Jokic
16. Giannis
17. Oscar Robertson
18. Jerry West
19. Dirk
20. KG
21. Durant

Now Durant certainly has an argument over KG, Dirk, West, and Oscar, but it’s debatable.

KG over KD? Sure man!

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using RealGM mobile app

[lilfishi22]

Just outside top 15 for me

[NZB2323]

I say top 5, he's proven he's GOAT level

(now is my time to decloak as a KD burner )

no but for real peak KD is probably right there with almost anyone. just incredible. Anything less than top 15 is silly to me.

I think fans haven't given him his proper respect for being a super hard worker and respecting the game because of all the other stuff.

I don’t think it’s silly to leave him out of the top 15. People have been posting his resume, but everyone in the top 20 has a stacked resume. I think a list like this is reasonable:

1. Jordan
2. Lebron
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5. Wilt
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Duncan
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe
11. Shaq
12. Curry
13. Moses Malone
14. Dr. J
15. Jokic
16. Giannis
17. Oscar Robertson
18. Jerry West
19. Dirk
20. KG
21. Durant

Now Durant certainly has an argument over KG, Dirk, West, and Oscar, but it’s debatable.

KG over KD? Sure man!

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using RealGM mobile app

He’s for sure a better defensive player and played with worse teammates in his career. I’ve seen him ranked as high as 6th in some lists on Realgm and the advanced stats love him.

But like I said, KD has an argument over KG, Dirk, West, and Oscar, but I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to have those guys ahead of KD.

[NZB2323]

Strong case for top 15 all time. He had one of the most incredible peaks i've ever witnessed, MVP year KD was absolutely spectacular

Not so much in the playoffs: 30 points, 9 rebounds, 4 assists, 4 turnovers per game on 57 TS%, 22.6 PER.

[dhsilv2]

Beta comes 2nd, so you could say that Moses is the Alpha version of Durant or that Durant is the Beta version of Moses.

Also, do you have any proof that Moses demanded a trade? Because all evidence says otherwise.

Alpha tests are done in house, not public. You start with a best test before the release. That was back when the NBA wasn't really a major thing, thus the beta test.

And everything I've ever read indicated it was a sign and trade because Moses wanted more than Houston would pay. If you have evidence otherwise let me know...

https://www.nba.com/sixers/news/sixers-history-trade-brought-chairman-philadelphia

OK just googled but yeah, just like everyone has ever said..not sure what you're talking about here.

So your argument is that Moses Malone wanted more money before Durant joined a 73 win team and therefore Durant is better?

nobody has argued who's better.

But I'm saying the same thing has happened before, it might looks slightly different due to the NBA having more restrictions on free agency in the past. Thus the beta tested version.

[dhsilv2]

I say top 5, he's proven he's GOAT level

(now is my time to decloak as a KD burner )

no but for real peak KD is probably right there with almost anyone. just incredible. Anything less than top 15 is silly to me.

I think fans haven't given him his proper respect for being a super hard worker and respecting the game because of all the other stuff.

I don’t think it’s silly to leave him out of the top 15. People have been posting his resume, but everyone in the top 20 has a stacked resume. I think a list like this is reasonable:

1. Jordan
2. Lebron
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5. Wilt
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Duncan
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe
11. Shaq
12. Curry
13. Moses Malone
14. Dr. J
15. Jokic
16. Giannis
17. Oscar Robertson
18. Jerry West
19. Dirk
20. KG
21. Durant

Now Durant certainly has an argument over KG, Dirk, West, and Oscar, but it’s debatable.

KG over KD? Sure man!

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using RealGM mobile app

What possible case is there for KD over KG? From peak to longevity to just raw what they do on the court...the two aren't close.

[Liver_Pooty]

1. MJ
2. LeBron
3. Wilt
4. Jabbar
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Duncan
8. Shaq
9. Kobe
10. Russell
11. Steph
12. Hakeem
13. M. Malone
14. Giannis
15. Jokic
16. Durant

Might be the best list I've ever seen. I'd have russell higher though

[HMFFL]

Strong case for top 15 all time. He had one of the most incredible peaks i've ever witnessed, MVP year KD was absolutely spectacular

Not so much in the playoffs: 30 points, 9 rebounds, 4 assists, 4 turnovers per game on 57 TS%, 22.6 PER.

His performances in Golden State was remarkable leading his team. 2017 Finals 35.2 ppg. The Finals still count as the playoffs, right?

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using RealGM mobile app

[shi-woo]

He's already a tier above Malone and Barkley, and all your favorite players who didn't win rings. He's just more of a threat than your favorite players who only won 1 but were more one dimentional like Dirk and KD.

Do you have Durant over West and/or Oscar? If so, why?

Is it because of "ring count"?

It's a cop out answer, I know, but I don't include players before the merger with the exception of KAJ. I don't find it fair or constructive to compare those worlds, it's just too different, and someone is going to get disrespected. The example I always use is Dr. J. By all accounts, he should be a unanimous Top 10 lock on every list if we didn't just cherry pick our favorite myths (4x MVP 3x Champ, OG iron man who played just as long as a modern player, and was the defacto player of the 70's and 80's). But you won't find him on anyones Top 10, why? Because his myth isn't the mythical triple dbl of Big O or the life like figures that Bill and Wilt were, and he's not the logo. We still only view him as a guy that won one in the Bird and Magic era. So how do we quantify that? I split the eras, and give those guys their proper respects, and all 3 are Top 10 premerger. (Mikan is another fantastic example, why isn't he in all your Top 10's)

In that regard, West and Oscar obviously were better given their eras, when you compare skill to peers. Everyone who was alive to watch 70's ball always tells me Oscar is the GOAT, even after watching MJ and LeBron, so I have to respect that. West is older still, so its hard to say other than the old games they used to play on ESPN classic what type of player he was.

So my Top 10 Modern list goes:

MJ
Kaj
LeBron
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Shaq
Steph
Dream
Kobe

Joker, KD, Charles would be my next men up.

Joker is 100% going to knock off one of Kobe/Dream/Steph just based on peak level of play in the coming years, and I'm already comfortable placing him behind Duncan and ahead of Shaq.

Steph if he continues to defy what is possible for a guard and have this ridiculous impact also has the chance to end up ahead of shaq, and 100% will with another deep playoff run/more hardware.

Giannis has a shot, but it's looking tepid at best right now, I would not pick him over guys like KG as it stands even if thats an unpopular opinion.

And finally KD's peak if he wins another ring, and probably going to be ahead of Kobe, but I don't see that happening, and think he's going to be the gatekeeper for Top 10 modern players. 1 MVP and 2 rings while being a Top 3 player of your era. That's the bar you have to break to crack the Top.

Pre Merger youre looking at something like

Bill
Oscar
Dr J
Wilt
West
Baylor
Hondo
Mikan
Pettit
Hayes

With the NY guys, Barry, and Cousey being next in line, but that era is all myth and happenstance

[NZB2323]

Strong case for top 15 all time. He had one of the most incredible peaks i've ever witnessed, MVP year KD was absolutely spectacular

Not so much in the playoffs: 30 points, 9 rebounds, 4 assists, 4 turnovers per game on 57 TS%, 22.6 PER.

His performances in Golden State was remarkable leading his team. 2017 Finals 35.2 ppg. The Finals still count as the playoffs, right?

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using RealGM mobile app

He put up excellent stats with a team that won 73 games without him, and had the best shooting and ball movement. There’s screenshots of KD getting a wide open dunk because teams are running to defend Curry at the 3 point line.

It’s not the same as playing on the 94 Rockets, for example.

[ropjhk]

He has negative value when it comes to leadership. He may be a top 20 all time talent but as an NBA great he's closer to outside the top 30.

[scrabbarista]

The problem with ranking KD is a couple things.

First, he's not done and that's just kinda what it is.

Second, we can't all open with discussing how we rank. So someone polorizing like KD, it just turns into a monkey poo flinging contest where we aren't talking to eachother...which we do (myself included) all the time here. But it's worse when by all our definitions being both not disclosed but not even thought about it becomes esoteric.

I'm actually pretty ok with other rankings very different from my own. I can accept people with KG in the top 10, for me he's clearly not but I get the argument. I can see someone having KD close to #10, but for me he's just not there for various reasons. If someone says he's knocking on top 10 ever I'm ok with reading what they have to say.

If it's well justified then I can accept and even see something I'm not including in my own criteria that might be relevant. For me the missing games are what actually hurt him the most, as I like to count production and injuries are a part of the game, but not being available hurts players the way I see it (obviously nothing less than 10 games missed penalizes the player for me).

About him not being done... yeah, there is always time to climb. To go down, for me, it's just if someone leaps him. Players add per season the way I see it, there are no negatives. They can have very few points tough.

I don't mind a different set of criteria and thus different rankings...assuming they are consistent. Case and point you can't argue Lebron is the GOAT and lean on advanced metrics and longevity for your criteria and then leave KG out of your top 10. But if you're all about rings and titles and you're more about "top 10 awarded" ok...maybe KG falls a few spots, totally fair. If your focus is on peak, you might rank Walton top 50. You might already have Jokic and Giannis in your top 12. But you can't tell me you really care about peak and then really fight hard for Parish to be top 50.

The key is criteria has to be explained. Not just back and fourth, no that's stupid, he isn't better than xyz when you're not talking about the same thing.

It can be all of the above, too. Like, a person could say Walton's great peak is equal to Parish's great longevity and put them both in his top 50, right?

[dhsilv2]

I'm actually pretty ok with other rankings very different from my own. I can accept people with KG in the top 10, for me he's clearly not but I get the argument. I can see someone having KD close to #10, but for me he's just not there for various reasons. If someone says he's knocking on top 10 ever I'm ok with reading what they have to say.

If it's well justified then I can accept and even see something I'm not including in my own criteria that might be relevant. For me the missing games are what actually hurt him the most, as I like to count production and injuries are a part of the game, but not being available hurts players the way I see it (obviously nothing less than 10 games missed penalizes the player for me).

About him not being done... yeah, there is always time to climb. To go down, for me, it's just if someone leaps him. Players add per season the way I see it, there are no negatives. They can have very few points tough.

I don't mind a different set of criteria and thus different rankings...assuming they are consistent. Case and point you can't argue Lebron is the GOAT and lean on advanced metrics and longevity for your criteria and then leave KG out of your top 10. But if you're all about rings and titles and you're more about "top 10 awarded" ok...maybe KG falls a few spots, totally fair. If your focus is on peak, you might rank Walton top 50. You might already have Jokic and Giannis in your top 12. But you can't tell me you really care about peak and then really fight hard for Parish to be top 50.

The key is criteria has to be explained. Not just back and fourth, no that's stupid, he isn't better than xyz when you're not talking about the same thing.

It can be all of the above, too. Like, a person could say Walton's great peak is equal to Parish's great longevity and put them both in his top 50, right?

I'm not sure how you could rank peak that highly AND longevity and those two both still land in the top 50. If they're equal in value...those two are likely near the end of a top 100 if not even on the outside.

[Lockdown504090]

Kinda crazy that KD has only won 1 MVP.

Kinda crazy that he won even one

Basketball skills he might be top 30

Leadership, BB IQ and ability to play within a team he’s not even top 150 in the league , rather rock bottom of the league

what do you question about his iq and ability to play within a team? Hes great at moving without the ball, both around the 3 point line, as a popper, and a cutter. his team defense has been great. he was consistently a very active rim defender. in golden state he was the most active/effective non-center rim protector that wasnt named draymond. shows his ability to rotate.

he has playoff runs where hes doubled his assists while keeping his turnovers at a similar level to the regular season. I thought the series against the bucks where he was alone showed how much his IQ had grown, and his performance on the warriors and now on the suns shows how well he fits in a team.

Durant is currently playing with a bunch of iso guys that dont really guard and a center that doesnt space the floor or finish well, or defend at a high level and still elevates those lineups.

the only knocks i have on him are that hes too weak both physically and emotionally to be in my top 13

[scrabbarista]

I don't mind a different set of criteria and thus different rankings...assuming they are consistent. Case and point you can't argue Lebron is the GOAT and lean on advanced metrics and longevity for your criteria and then leave KG out of your top 10. But if you're all about rings and titles and you're more about "top 10 awarded" ok...maybe KG falls a few spots, totally fair. If your focus is on peak, you might rank Walton top 50. You might already have Jokic and Giannis in your top 12. But you can't tell me you really care about peak and then really fight hard for Parish to be top 50.

The key is criteria has to be explained. Not just back and fourth, no that's stupid, he isn't better than xyz when you're not talking about the same thing.

It can be all of the above, too. Like, a person could say Walton's great peak is equal to Parish's great longevity and put them both in his top 50, right?

I'm not sure how you could rank peak that highly AND longevity and those two both still land in the top 50. If they're equal in value...those two are likely near the end of a top 100 if not even on the outside.

"Highly" is doing a lot of work and is vague.

I only said 50 because it was a number you used. It had nothing to do with my point. I could've said 100, 150, 200, etc.. Or I could've used different names. I just used the names and numbers you used because they were at hand. I could've said Player X, Player Y, and ranking Z, but it wouldn't have been as much fun.

My point was to ask you whether it's not possible to value all things such that it's not so crazy to have great peak guys sitting next to great longevity guys or great ringz guys or great awards guys or whatever. And if all of these things are valued, then a player who is great in more than one might greatly outrank a player who is great in only one of the ones the other player is great in. So it would be unfair to say to someone, "You say you value this thing, but look at the difference in your ranking between these two guys who were both great in that area." Further, there can be a question of degree in all categories that can be measured (and those that are evaluated more subjectively), so that small margins in multiple categories can add up to big differences.

When there are as many factors in play as an NBA list can potentially have, I think so-called consistency can actually come at the price of extremely narrow focus and is thus overrated. The fewer things you consider, the more "consistent" your list can be, but that doesn't make it a good list, even if it's less vulnerable to being called "inconsistent."

[dhsilv2]

It can be all of the above, too. Like, a person could say Walton's great peak is equal to Parish's great longevity and put them both in his top 50, right?

I'm not sure how you could rank peak that highly AND longevity and those two both still land in the top 50. If they're equal in value...those two are likely near the end of a top 100 if not even on the outside.

"Highly" is doing a lot of work and is vague.

I only said 50 because it was a number you used. It had nothing to do with my point. I could've said 100, 150, 200, etc.. Or I could've used different names. I just used the names and numbers you used because they were at hand. I could've said Player X, Player Y, and ranking Z, but it wouldn't have been as much fun.

My point was to ask you whether it's not possible to value all things such that it's not so crazy to have great peak guys sitting next to great longevity guys or great ringz guys or great awards guys or whatever. And if all of these things are valued, then a player who is great in more than one might greatly outrank a player who is great in only one of the ones the other player is great in. So it would be unfair to say to someone, "You say you value this thing, but look at the difference in your ranking between these two guys who were both great in that area." Further, there can be a question of degree in all categories that can be measured (and those that are evaluated more subjectively), so that small margins in multiple categories can add up to big differences.

When there are as many factors in play as an NBA list can potentially have, I think so-called consistency can actually come at the price of extremely narrow focus and is thus overrated. The fewer things you consider, the more "consistent" your list can be, but that doesn't make it a good list, even if it's less vulnerable to being called "inconsistent."

Sure you could come to some "equation" and I don't mean you're doing math per say but ultimately that's somewhat what you're doing no matter what here, that would set Parish and Walton essentially equal. But the question is can you apply whatever logic got you there to the rest of the list. If you can, great. I think the two are actually generally about 20-50 spots apart so many people do just exactly that. Are they consistent? IMO no, but I don't think they're being dishonest either when they do it as it gets hard after the top 40 or so guys to stay consistent. And that's why I bring it up. It's obvious people don't have honest criteria the further out they get. And a big part of it is simple...these rankings are hard.

[scrabbarista]

I'm not sure how you could rank peak that highly AND longevity and those two both still land in the top 50. If they're equal in value...those two are likely near the end of a top 100 if not even on the outside.

"Highly" is doing a lot of work and is vague.

I only said 50 because it was a number you used. It had nothing to do with my point. I could've said 100, 150, 200, etc.. Or I could've used different names. I just used the names and numbers you used because they were at hand. I could've said Player X, Player Y, and ranking Z, but it wouldn't have been as much fun.

My point was to ask you whether it's not possible to value all things such that it's not so crazy to have great peak guys sitting next to great longevity guys or great ringz guys or great awards guys or whatever. And if all of these things are valued, then a player who is great in more than one might greatly outrank a player who is great in only one of the ones the other player is great in. So it would be unfair to say to someone, "You say you value this thing, but look at the difference in your ranking between these two guys who were both great in that area." Further, there can be a question of degree in all categories that can be measured (and those that are evaluated more subjectively), so that small margins in multiple categories can add up to big differences.

When there are as many factors in play as an NBA list can potentially have, I think so-called consistency can actually come at the price of extremely narrow focus and is thus overrated. The fewer things you consider, the more "consistent" your list can be, but that doesn't make it a good list, even if it's less vulnerable to being called "inconsistent."

Sure you could come to some "equation" and I don't mean you're doing math per say but ultimately that's somewhat what you're doing no matter what here, that would set Parish and Walton essentially equal. But the question is can you apply whatever logic got you there to the rest of the list. If you can, great. I think the two are actually generally about 20-50 spots apart so many people do just exactly that. Are they consistent? IMO no, but I don't think they're being dishonest either when they do it as it gets hard after the top 40 or so guys to stay consistent. And that's why I bring it up. It's obvious people don't have honest criteria the further out they get. And a big part of it is simple...these rankings are hard.

And my point is that the appearance of consistency is only possible by ignoring some factors - or, to put it another way, by judging all players in all times in all roles with all rules at all positions in all eras with all refereeing (etc.) by the same measurable standards that will inevitably not take into account some of these factors.

That's part of why it gets so hard after 40 (or pick a number - I would argue this applies to literally every spot in a ranking): because players weren't doing the same thing as the players above 40 (or pick a number); they had different jobs to do, and as such it would be wrong to judge them by the same standard. This is one point against the idea of applying the blanket criticism of "inconsistent" to any list.

[dhsilv2]

"Highly" is doing a lot of work and is vague.

I only said 50 because it was a number you used. It had nothing to do with my point. I could've said 100, 150, 200, etc.. Or I could've used different names. I just used the names and numbers you used because they were at hand. I could've said Player X, Player Y, and ranking Z, but it wouldn't have been as much fun.

My point was to ask you whether it's not possible to value all things such that it's not so crazy to have great peak guys sitting next to great longevity guys or great ringz guys or great awards guys or whatever. And if all of these things are valued, then a player who is great in more than one might greatly outrank a player who is great in only one of the ones the other player is great in. So it would be unfair to say to someone, "You say you value this thing, but look at the difference in your ranking between these two guys who were both great in that area." Further, there can be a question of degree in all categories that can be measured (and those that are evaluated more subjectively), so that small margins in multiple categories can add up to big differences.

When there are as many factors in play as an NBA list can potentially have, I think so-called consistency can actually come at the price of extremely narrow focus and is thus overrated. The fewer things you consider, the more "consistent" your list can be, but that doesn't make it a good list, even if it's less vulnerable to being called "inconsistent."

Sure you could come to some "equation" and I don't mean you're doing math per say but ultimately that's somewhat what you're doing no matter what here, that would set Parish and Walton essentially equal. But the question is can you apply whatever logic got you there to the rest of the list. If you can, great. I think the two are actually generally about 20-50 spots apart so many people do just exactly that. Are they consistent? IMO no, but I don't think they're being dishonest either when they do it as it gets hard after the top 40 or so guys to stay consistent. And that's why I bring it up. It's obvious people don't have honest criteria the further out they get. And a big part of it is simple...these rankings are hard.

And my point is that the appearance of consistency is only possible by ignoring some factors - or, to put it another way, by judging all players in all times in all roles with all rules at all positions in all eras with all refereeing (etc.) by the same measurable standards that will inevitably not take into account some of these factors.

That's part of why it gets so hard after 40 (or pick a number - I would argue this applies to literally every spot in a ranking): because players weren't doing the same thing as the players above 40 (or pick a number); they had different jobs to do, and as such it would be wrong to judge them by the same standard. This is one point against the idea of applying the blanket criticism of "inconsistent" to any list.

I don't think that's an issue at all. If I were to say my measure if how much value a player contributed to winning, it's that simple. Now how do we measure that becomes a challenge, but the era and roles and all that you can almost instantly do away with once you set that kind of criteria. Yeah, you might group guys together and say "well this role is more valuable so they're the top of this tier" but as long as you're consistent no issue.