Where do you rank Durant all time?

[WarriorGM]

Actually, I forgot about Denver's 2023 run. Theirs was weaker than 2015 Warriors. Other than that, the rest still apply.

And yes, it's more impressive than beating LeBron in his prime... when LeBron is literally missing his all star teammates and they're running a tight 7 man rotation with James Jones in it.

That LeBron team pretty much describes the one that swept a 60-win team in the 2015 Eastern Conference Finals. Add Kyrie back and that's a team that beat a team with Jimmy Butler, Pau Gasol, and Derrick Rose. Does that sound like a team that's less impressive than the Trae Young Atlanta Hawks?

Yeah but we aren't talking hypotheticals here. The fact is, Cleveland did not have Kyrie for five of the six games in that series. GS didn't face a single healthy team that entire playoff run, and even at full strength, none of them expect for Cleveland were superior. Stop with this nonsense.

And the Hawks aren't, but the Suns definitely are... at least the Bucks faced a healthy finals opponent.

What hypotheticals are we talking about? LeBron without Love and Kyrie for most of the series swept the 2015 Eastern Conference Finals. That's a fact. Are you saying such a team is weaker than a Butler team that relied mainly on Tyler Herro and Duncan Robinson for support since Saric and Adebayo were out half the games? Or an inferior version of a Suns team that Doncic would also eliminate a year later? I don't hold LeBron in the same esteem as others do but I do think suggesting that a LeBron team is weaker than one led by Butler or Doncic if given similar circumstances underestimates LeBron.

[Iwasawitness]

That LeBron team pretty much describes the one that swept a 60-win team in the 2015 Eastern Conference Finals. Add Kyrie back and that's a team that beat a team with Jimmy Butler, Pau Gasol, and Derrick Rose. Does that sound like a team that's less impressive than the Trae Young Atlanta Hawks?

Yeah but we aren't talking hypotheticals here. The fact is, Cleveland did not have Kyrie for five of the six games in that series. GS didn't face a single healthy team that entire playoff run, and even at full strength, none of them expect for Cleveland were superior. Stop with this nonsense.

And the Hawks aren't, but the Suns definitely are... at least the Bucks faced a healthy finals opponent.

What hypotheticals are we talking about? LeBron without Love and Kyrie for most of the series swept the 2015 Eastern Conference Finals. That's a fact. Are you saying such a team is weaker than a Butler team that relied mainly on Tyler Herro and Duncan Robinson for support since Saric and Adebayo were out half the games? Or an inferior version of a Suns team that Doncic would also eliminate a year later? I don't hold LeBron in the same esteem as others do but I do think suggesting that a LeBron team is weaker than one led by Butler or Doncic if given similar circumstances underestimates LeBron.

If you aren't talking about hypotheticals then what's the point of mentioning what LeBron did against the Bulls with Irving on the team? And yeah, they swept the Hawks. The Hawks aren't the Warriors. The Warriors were a 67 win team... with three all stars, two all defensive players, the best sixth man in the league and the MVP of that season. Sweeping the 60 win Hawks, while impressive, is irrelevant. The Cavaliers were still vastly inferior to the Warriors.

[lessthanjake]

Yeah but we aren't talking hypotheticals here. The fact is, Cleveland did not have Kyrie for five of the six games in that series. GS didn't face a single healthy team that entire playoff run, and even at full strength, none of them expect for Cleveland were superior. Stop with this nonsense.

And the Hawks aren't, but the Suns definitely are... at least the Bucks faced a healthy finals opponent.

What hypotheticals are we talking about? LeBron without Love and Kyrie for most of the series swept the 2015 Eastern Conference Finals. That's a fact. Are you saying such a team is weaker than a Butler team that relied mainly on Tyler Herro and Duncan Robinson for support since Saric and Adebayo were out half the games? Or an inferior version of a Suns team that Doncic would also eliminate a year later? I don't hold LeBron in the same esteem as others do but I do think suggesting that a LeBron team is weaker than one led by Butler or Doncic if given similar circumstances underestimates LeBron.

If you aren't talking about hypotheticals then what's the point of mentioning what LeBron did against the Bulls with Irving on the team? And yeah, they swept the Hawks. The Hawks aren't the Warriors. The Warriors were a 67 win team... with three all stars, two all defensive players, the best sixth man in the league and the MVP of that season. Sweeping the 60 win Hawks, while impressive, is irrelevant. The Cavaliers were still vastly inferior to the Warriors.

The 2015 Cavs were of course weaker than they could’ve been, but the fact that they swept the Hawks largely without Kyrie (he played limited minutes in two games and they outscored the Hawks with Kyrie off the floor in both those games) is pretty relevant since the Hawks were the best team that the East otherwise had to offer. Despite the injuries, the Cavs were clearly the best team in the East. Does that mean they were a particularly difficult Finals opponent? No. But it’s not an example of a fluke team that wouldn’t have made the Finals in the state that they were in in the Finals. They were more just an example of the best team in a very weak conference.

And prior to the Finals I think it’s tough to argue that the 2015 Warriors had a particularly easy run. There’s definitely harder runs to the Finals, but they faced a 55-win team and a 56-win team. The 56-win team was led by a major superstar—which is a major factor in playoff difficulty IMO. And even their first-round opponent was a team led by an all-NBA first team guy, which is the type of first-round opponent that is most dangerous. They didn’t face any true juggernaut on the way to the Finals, but they did face tough opponents. I think one can point to injuries to players on opposing teams prior to the Finals, but the only meaningful one was Mike Conley, and he only missed one game.

On balance, I’d say that having a run to the Finals that goes through good teams but no juggernauts, followed by facing a best-team-in-a-weak-conference in the Finals is on the easier side of things in terms of title runs. But there’s definitely been plenty of easier title runs.

And I’ll note that I definitely don’t think it makes sense to tether the ease of the playoff run to the Warriors being a 67-win team. The fact that they were a 67-win team reflects on how good they were, not on how good their opponents were. And it doesn’t make sense to effectively discount what they achieved in the title run on the basis that they were really good. If it was easy for them because they were really good, then that reflects well on them and what they accomplished!

[Hoop Hunter]

Top 25. Closer to the bottom of that.

[wade44]

Top 35 maybe top 30. Joining the 73 win team will always knock him down several pegs

[Raps in 4]

Guys that are unquestionably ahead of him:

Wilt
Russell
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Jordan
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
LeBron
Wade
Dirk
Steph
Giannis
Jokic

So somewhere in the 17-30 range. He's in the same tier as guys like Pippen, Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Nash, CP3, Harden, etc.

[Special_Puppy]

I don't see any rationale for putting Durant in the same category as Jokic. Jokic is in a different class entirely, and his 1 championship ring is infinitely more meaningful than Durant's two.

Durant was a great scorer but I can't help but feel he's a bit of a fraud in those conversations. He essentially stole those two championship rings with Golden State - these came free.

As a player, I think it's fair to put him in the same general tier as Dirk, Giannis, Garnett, Malone, West and Dr. J. All-time great basketball players, but not on the same level as legends such as Curry, LeBron, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Magic or Bird (I rate Jokic as just short of that tier).

But the championships these guys won were all much more meaningful and hard-earned than Durant's, so he should fall behind them within that tier (alongside Malone).

History should not forget the circumstances behind his two championship rings. They're completely watered down compared to the borderline messianic achievements of Dirk and Giannis, or the pain and psychological barriers West had to overcome to finally win a title. They don't mean nearly as much.

I agree with a lot of your post. Despite being in the same tier, I already have Jokic ahead and I think Jokic is on pace to join that next tier and completely clear Durant but he still needs to do a bit more. His prime is a bit too short right now.

I've asked this to many posters here and rarely get a response. Maybe one of you will answer.

Why is Jokic beating the:
23' twolves (42-40 team, led by a younger Edwards, and KAT who was banged up that year)
23 Suns (45-37 team, acquired KD at the deadline for all their depth, and he only played a dozen or so games before the playoffs)
23 Lakers (43-39 team, had AD/Old lebron)
23 Heat (44-38 team who caught fire early in the playoffs and was running on fumes)

More impressive than OKC Durant beating teams like:
2012 San Antonio (50-16 team, had home court advantage, led by Tim Duncan/Manu/Parker. Had won 20 straight games before OKC beat them 4 straight in the WCF)
2014 Clippers (57-25 team, two top 10 players at the time in their primes in CP3 and Blake Griffin)
2016 Spurs (67-15 team, had home court advantage)

The teams OKC took down in the playoffs with KD were significantly better than any team Jokic has beat with Denver, certainly any during the 23 finals run (and there hasn't been much outside of that). Like, way significantly better. KDs thunder clearly could've steamrolled Denvers 23 path. The only teams they lost to when healthy from 2012 until KD left were the 2012 Heat, 2014 Spurs (though Ibaka was banged up), and 2016 Warriors. Yes they had Westbrook, who is better than any player Jokic has played with. But they also had embarrassingly bad shooting and center play most of that time too.

So why is beating lesser teams more impressive?

Who said that Jokic's Nuggets have beaten more great teams than Durant's Thunder did? Now if the gap in team results is due to Durant being better than Jokic then that's obviously the reason to pick Durant. But the people arguing for Jokic think the gap in results is due to differences in supporting cast.

[Special_Puppy]

Box Score Composites tend to place him around ~15th all time. My composite of advanced stats placed him ~11th from 2015 to 2023 which hints that he may be closer to ~20th all time

[Iwasawitness]

The 2015 Cavs were of course weaker than they could’ve been, but the fact that they swept the Hawks largely without Kyrie (he played limited minutes in two games and they outscored the Hawks with Kyrie off the floor in both those games) is pretty relevant since the Hawks were the best team that the East otherwise had to offer. Despite the injuries, the Cavs were clearly the best team in the East. Does that mean they were a particularly difficult Finals opponent? No. But it’s not an example of a fluke team that wouldn’t have made the Finals in the state that they were in in the Finals. They were more just an example of the best team in a very weak conference.

The Cavs were the best team in the East, sure. But as many people will try to point out to you for agenda sake, being the best team in the East is a different animal from being the best team in the NBA. Now make no mistake about it, that 2015 Cavaliers team at full strength was an elite team, but the simple fact is... they weren't at full strength. This can't really be argued. And beating the 2015 Hawks definitely looks impressive, but when you look further into the surface... it doesn't really look all that meaningful, or even that surprising.

One of the key problems for Atlanta is that as good as they were defensively (6th in the league in fact), they didn't really have anyone to stop LeBron from doing whatever he wanted. More importantly, Cleveland being without Irving for half the series and having no Love forced them to play a more gritty and dirty type of defensive pressure, and having the likes of Delly, Shumpert, Thompson out there was suffocating for the Hawks defensively. The Hawks were a top offensive team that season and failed to score 90 points in three of the four games (and the only time they did, it was an OT game). But the main reason why they struggled offensively is that they just didn't have a clear offensive go-to man in this situation. And prior to the Cavaliers, they just didn't run into anyone who could do this to Atlanta defensively. Another big problem is that they could not contain Cleveland on the boards. In all four games, the Cavaliers had a 10+ rebounding advantage every single time. Tristan Thompson in particular dominated the boards throughout the series. And it isn't like the Hawks had many options from a depth perspective to respond to something like this. If their big four wasn't able to impose their will, they were kind of screwed.

So in this series, the Hawks couldn't really score against the Cleveland defense, couldn't contain them on the boards, and could do nothing to stop LeBron. To me, this sounds a lot more like a matchup problem than it does Cleveland being as good of a team as you make them out to be.

Let's compare that to Golden State for a moment. Unlike Atlanta, Golden State had multiple elite (all team worthy defenders in fact) on their squad, capable of slowing down the Cavaliers offense (who failed to score double digits in all but one game that went to OT, and that one had Irving playing in it). They were deep in talent, had multiple options on how they could run their lineups without really hurting themselves on either end of the floor, and were an elite offensive team that required Cleveland's defense to move a LOT more on the floor and cover more ground.

So this means one of two things... one, that Warriors team was really that good, or we're overrating that Cavaliers team. Either way, this points to a not particularly difficult situation for Golden State as they are clearly above their opponent here.

And prior to the Finals I think it’s tough to argue that the 2015 Warriors had a particularly easy run. There’s definitely harder runs to the Finals, but they faced a 55-win team and a 56-win team. The 56-win team was led by a major superstar—which is a major factor in playoff difficulty IMO. And even their first-round opponent was a team led by an all-NBA first team guy, which is the type of first-round opponent that is most dangerous. They didn’t face any true juggernaut on the way to the Finals, but they did face tough opponents. I think one can point to injuries to players on opposing teams prior to the Finals, but the only meaningful one was Mike Conley, and he only missed one game.

Okay, let's talk about those teams shall we?

First we'll address the first one, the Pelicans, who they swept. This is a clear mismatch and not even worth discussing. Granted, AD did feast on the Warriors that year, but overall, his team did not have the capabilities to stand up to GS. A lot of people will mention the fact that Jrue Holiday was missing that entire series, but I don't really think that would have mattered all that much. Warriors were just that much better.

Second team, the Grizzlies. This is easily the biggest challenge Golden State faced that year. That Grizzlies team was no joke. But the only problem is... injuries. Yeah, they did eventually get Conley back. Unfortunately for them, Tony Allen got injured in game 4, reinjured himself in game 5 and couldn't come back. Grizzlies were pretty much screwed without Allen and it was no coincidence that they lost all of their remaining games in dominant fashion once Allen was no longer a factor. This matters.

Then there's the WCF opponent... the Rockets. First off, no Patrick Beverly for that entire playoff run. That's pretty significant given that Curry and Thompson were on that Warriors team. Dwight Howard was given fits all series long by Bogut. But probably most importantly, you had historic playoff choker James Harden leading their team. That was pretty much a handicap in of itself. Yeah sure, he had a couple good games. He also had two absolute stinkers in games 3 and 5 and was a complete non factor. I don't care how good the Rockets were in the regular season. When you have James Harden leading your team, what you did in the regular season no longer matters.

So overall, this was a pretty easy playoff run for the Warriors leading into the finals. A completely outmatched first round opponent, a very good, if not great second round opponent who missed key players at certain points in the series, and a good WCF opponent led by a career choker in Harden. Overall, there's nothing here that I'm particularly impressed by, nor do I have a reason to be impressed.

On balance, I’d say that having a run to the Finals that goes through good teams but no juggernauts, followed by facing a best-team-in-a-weak-conference in the Finals is on the easier side of things in terms of title runs. But there’s definitely been plenty of easier title runs.

And I’ll note that I definitely don’t think it makes sense to tether the ease of the playoff run to the Warriors being a 67-win team. The fact that they were a 67-win team reflects on how good they were, not on how good their opponents were. And it doesn’t make sense to effectively discount what they achieved in the title run on the basis that they were really good. If it was easy for them because they were really good, then that reflects well on them and what they accomplished!

Why does the Warriors being a 67 win team not matter? It makes perfect sense to point out just how elite of a team the Warriors were that year. If they were just a good or very good team, that would actually help this point a lot more. Going through good teams matters a lot more in that situation. However, none of the teams that GS went through prior to facing Cleveland were on their level, even without injuries. They had a 10.01 SRS that season for crying out loud... they were historically good.

[dautjazz]

Without a doubt I have the following ahead of him (ignore order):

MJ
Lebron
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Bird
Magic
Shaq
Duncan
Olajuwon
Jokic
Curry
Giannis

I'd probably have in the mix with following group:

KG
Kobe
O.Robertson
West
K.Malone
M.Malone

So somewhere between 14-20ish.

His Warriors chapter is a big stain on his legacy, just such a weak move mentally, and they were amongst the biggest freebies among championships in NBA history, so I can't really put his success over Malone or Barkley, who would of won titles too if they joined the 72 win Bulls.

[lessthanjake]

The 2015 Cavs were of course weaker than they could’ve been, but the fact that they swept the Hawks largely without Kyrie (he played limited minutes in two games and they outscored the Hawks with Kyrie off the floor in both those games) is pretty relevant since the Hawks were the best team that the East otherwise had to offer. Despite the injuries, the Cavs were clearly the best team in the East. Does that mean they were a particularly difficult Finals opponent? No. But it’s not an example of a fluke team that wouldn’t have made the Finals in the state that they were in in the Finals. They were more just an example of the best team in a very weak conference.

The Cavs were the best team in the East, sure. But as many people will try to point out to you for agenda sake, being the best team in the East is a different animal from being the best team in the NBA. Now make no mistake about it, that 2015 Cavaliers team at full strength was an elite team, but the simple fact is... they weren't at full strength. This can't really be argued. And beating the 2015 Hawks definitely looks impressive, but when you look further into the surface... it doesn't really look all that meaningful, or even that surprising.

One of the key problems for Atlanta is that as good as they were defensively (6th in the league in fact), they didn't really have anyone to stop LeBron from doing whatever he wanted. More importantly, Cleveland being without Irving for half the series and having no Love forced them to play a more gritty and dirty type of defensive pressure, and having the likes of Delly, Shumpert, Thompson out there was suffocating for the Hawks defensively. The Hawks were a top offensive team that season and failed to score 90 points in three of the four games (and the only time they did, it was an OT game). But the main reason why they struggled offensively is that they just didn't have a clear offensive go-to man in this situation. And prior to the Cavaliers, they just didn't run into anyone who could do this to Atlanta defensively. Another big problem is that they could not contain Cleveland on the boards. In all four games, the Cavaliers had a 10+ rebounding advantage every single time. Tristan Thompson in particular dominated the boards throughout the series. And it isn't like the Hawks had many options from a depth perspective to respond to something like this. If their big four wasn't able to impose their will, they were kind of screwed.

So in this series, the Hawks couldn't really score against the Cleveland defense, couldn't contain them on the boards, and could do nothing to stop LeBron. To me, this sounds a lot more like a matchup problem than it does Cleveland being as good of a team as you make them out to be.

Let's compare that to Golden State for a moment. Unlike Atlanta, Golden State had multiple elite (all team worthy defenders in fact) on their squad, capable of slowing down the Cavaliers offense (who failed to score double digits in all but one game that went to OT, and that one had Irving playing in it). They were deep in talent, had multiple options on how they could run their lineups without really hurting themselves on either end of the floor, and were an elite offensive team that required Cleveland's defense to move a LOT more on the floor and cover more ground.

So this means one of two things... one, that Warriors team was really that good, or we're overrating that Cavaliers team. Either way, this points to a not particularly difficult situation for Golden State as they are clearly above their opponent here.

All of this seems fair to me, but the fact that the Cavaliers were running lineups that were really suffocating defensively and fantastic on the boards is actually why they were still a pretty formidable team. Not a difficult team as Finals opponents go, but definitely no joke either. It was basically LeBron surrounded by a suffocating defense. There’s definitely easier Finals opponents than that!

And prior to the Finals I think it’s tough to argue that the 2015 Warriors had a particularly easy run. There’s definitely harder runs to the Finals, but they faced a 55-win team and a 56-win team. The 56-win team was led by a major superstar—which is a major factor in playoff difficulty IMO. And even their first-round opponent was a team led by an all-NBA first team guy, which is the type of first-round opponent that is most dangerous. They didn’t face any true juggernaut on the way to the Finals, but they did face tough opponents. I think one can point to injuries to players on opposing teams prior to the Finals, but the only meaningful one was Mike Conley, and he only missed one game.

Okay, let's talk about those teams shall we?

First we'll address the first one, the Pelicans, who they swept. This is a clear mismatch and not even worth discussing. Granted, AD did feast on the Warriors that year, but overall, his team did not have the capabilities to stand up to GS. A lot of people will mention the fact that Jrue Holiday was missing that entire series, but I don't really think that would have mattered all that much. Warriors were just that much better.

Let’s put this in the context of a first-round opponent though. Virtually every first-round opponent for a title-winning team is going to be an opponent that definitely isn’t as good. But within that context, facing an all-NBA first team guy in the first round is not a great first-round draw to get. There’s more risk against a guy that good than there normally is with a first-round opponent. The fact that they easily won the series anyways reflects well on them, rather than being some reason to say they had easy opponents.

Second team, the Grizzlies. This is easily the biggest challenge Golden State faced that year. That Grizzlies team was no joke. But the only problem is... injuries. Yeah, they did eventually get Conley back. Unfortunately for them, Tony Allen got injured in game 4, reinjured himself in game 5 and couldn't come back. Grizzlies were pretty much screwed without Allen and it was no coincidence that they lost all of their remaining games in dominant fashion once Allen was no longer a factor. This matters.

This isn’t wrong, but I think when we get down to guys like Tony Allen, you’d be hard-pressed to find any team that didn’t go through opponents who were missing at least some significant role player. It’s quite common for teams not to be fully healthy in the playoffs.

Then there's the WCF opponent... the Rockets. First off, no Patrick Beverly for that entire playoff run. That's pretty significant given that Curry and Thompson were on that Warriors team. Dwight Howard was given fits all series long by Bogut. But probably most importantly, you had historic playoff choker James Harden leading their team. That was pretty much a handicap in of itself. Yeah sure, he had a couple good games. He also had two absolute stinkers in games 3 and 5 and was a complete non factor. I don't care how good the Rockets were in the regular season. When you have James Harden leading your team, what you did in the regular season no longer matters.

Okay, as an initial matter, I cannot ever be convinced that Patrick Beverly being out matters much. He’s just not a very good player. For reference, his EPM that year was +0.1 (including a negative defensive EPM). They started Jason Terry in his place, who had a +0.3 EPM (including a positive defensive EPM). And, overall, those Rockets were actually healthier in the playoffs than they tended to have been in the regular season. Dwight had missed half the season but was there for the playoffs. Jones had only played 33 regular season games, but was there for the playoffs. Brewer only played 56 games but was there for the playoffs. Josh Smith had played 55 games but was there for the playoffs. They were healthier for the playoffs than they had tended to be in the regular season where they won 56 games. If anything, I’d say health is a factor that makes those Rockets look better than their regular season results would suggest.

If you want to discount the Rockets because they had Harden and you think Harden is a playoff “choker” then I guess you can do that. But we should remember that a good part of the reason Harden has a reputation as a playoff choker is precisely because in his prime he lost four times in the playoffs to the Warriors. He might well have won a title if the Steph and the Warriors hadn’t been so good—in fact, I’d say it’s extremely likely they would’ve at least won in 2018. In which case, Harden suddenly wouldn’t be known as a playoff choker at all. So I just find it a bit odd to downplay the Warriors’ accomplishment of beating the Rockets on the basis that Harden is a playoff “choker” in large part due to frequently losing to the Warriors. Seems like somewhat circular reasoning, in a way.

So overall, this was a pretty easy playoff run for the Warriors leading into the finals. A completely outmatched first round opponent, a very good, if not great second round opponent who missed key players at certain points in the series, and a good WCF opponent led by a career choker in Harden. Overall, there's nothing here that I'm particularly impressed by, nor do I have a reason to be impressed.

I wouldn’t say there’s any specific series that is “particularly” impressive. They didn’t beat a juggernaut. So there’s definitely plenty of harder title runs out there. But they faced some difficult opponents, and there’s definitely easier title runs out there too. It’s just somewhere in the middle 50% IMO.

On balance, I’d say that having a run to the Finals that goes through good teams but no juggernauts, followed by facing a best-team-in-a-weak-conference in the Finals is on the easier side of things in terms of title runs. But there’s definitely been plenty of easier title runs.

And I’ll note that I definitely don’t think it makes sense to tether the ease of the playoff run to the Warriors being a 67-win team. The fact that they were a 67-win team reflects on how good they were, not on how good their opponents were. And it doesn’t make sense to effectively discount what they achieved in the title run on the basis that they were really good. If it was easy for them because they were really good, then that reflects well on them and what they accomplished!

Why does the Warriors being a 67 win team not matter? It makes perfect sense to point out just how elite of a team the Warriors were that year. If they were just a good or very good team, that would actually help this point a lot more. Going through good teams matters a lot more in that situation. However, none of the teams that GS went through prior to facing Cleveland were on their level, even without injuries. They had a 10.01 SRS that season for crying out loud... they were historically good.

The Warriors being a 67-win team doesn’t matter when trying to simply assess how hard their opponents were as a way to denigrate their achievement of winning the title. If you’re trying to assess how hard the title run was *for them* then it’s no longer a discussion that leads to any negative conclusion about the Warriors if it was easy. If the title run was easy because Steph and the Warriors were historically good, then that reflects well on them, rather than being something that could downplay what they did!

[Iwasawitness]

All of this seems fair to me, but the fact that the Cavaliers were running lineups that were really suffocating defensively and fantastic on the boards is actually why they were still a pretty formidable team. Not a difficult team as Finals opponents go, but definitely no joke either. It was basically LeBron surrounded by a suffocating defense. There’s definitely easier Finals opponents than that!

Sure, but that suffocating defense only lasted for so long. It worked for about three games... and then the Warriors made an adjustment and just like that, Cleveland was screwed. Golden State taking Bogut out of the starting line up (and pretty much out of the series) and just going small from the start was an adjustment that Cleveland had no real way of responding to. Why? Because they were missing multiple rotation players to injury. If a team can't make any real adjustments on their end and have to stick with their normal group of players no matter what, that's not all that great of a team.

Again, the Hawks didn't really have the capabilities to make these kinds of adjustments. The Warriors on the other hand did. That's the difference here.

Okay, as an initial matter, I cannot ever be convinced that Patrick Beverly being out matters much. He’s just not a very good player. For reference, his EPM that year was +0.1 (including a negative defensive EPM). They started Jason Terry in his place, who had a +0.3 EPM (including a positive defensive EPM). And, overall, those Rockets were actually healthier in the playoffs than they tended to have been in the regular season. Dwight had missed half the season but was there for the playoffs. Jones had only played 33 regular season games, but was there for the playoffs. Brewer only played 56 games but was there for the playoffs. Josh Smith had played 55 games but was there for the playoffs. They were healthier for the playoffs than they had tended to be in the regular season where they won 56 games. If anything, I’d say health is a factor that makes those Rockets look better than their regular season results would suggest.

First off, EPM is a terrible defensive metric to use for a PG's defensive capabilities. I almost never use defensive EPM when judging a PG's defensive impact and usually, it doesn't paint an accurate picture on how much of an impact they truly have. I do agree that Beverly has a lot of flaws as a player, even at this peak, but his ability to harass and bother opposing guards and even forwards can't be ignored (and I say this as someone who has Beverly as one of his least favorite players of all time). Not to mention, Beverly was second team all defense the previous season. He was clearly, at the very least, an elite defensive player. Having him around would have helped immensely and you can't tell me otherwise.

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=NBADefense

This is Beverly guarding Curry in 2021. You're telling me a much younger Beverly couldn't have made a difference? I'm not saying Rockets win that series if he plays, but Curry definitely has a much tougher time getting his buckets. We all saw what Delly did to Curry that year... you can't tell me Beverly wouldn't do something similar.

If you want to discount the Rockets because they had Harden and you think Harden is a playoff “choker” then I guess you can do that. But we should remember that a good part of the reason Harden has a reputation as a playoff choker is precisely because in his prime he lost four times in the playoffs to the Warriors.

Um, no. A good part of the reason why Harden has that reputation is because he averages 22 PPG from the field in elimination games on 57% TS with 4.4 TPG. He just isn't good in elimination game situations.

He might well have won a title if the Steph and the Warriors hadn’t been so good—in fact, I’d say it’s extremely likely they would’ve at least won in 2018. In which case, Harden suddenly wouldn’t be known as a playoff choker at all. So I just find it a bit odd to downplay the Warriors’ accomplishment of beating the Rockets on the basis that Harden is a playoff “choker” in large part due to frequently losing to the Warriors. Seems like somewhat circular reasoning, in a way.

Sure, they win in 2018 if it wasn't for the Warriors, but he wouldn't have been the main reason. Chris Paul arriving really turned that team around. And they had a terrific supporting cast around their superstar duo. I have every reason to believe that if the Rockets had won that year, Paul would have been the FMVP, not Harden.

I wouldn’t say there’s any specific series that is “particularly” impressive. They didn’t beat a juggernaut. So there’s definitely plenty of harder title runs out there. But they faced some difficult opponents, and there’s definitely easier title runs out there too. It’s just somewhere in the middle 50% IMO.

In terms of what? Every Finals winner in NBA history? If so, then sure. But we're going off of WarriorGM's timeline of every team since 2015, and in that regard, they're nearly at the bottom, only being bested by the 2017 Warriors and 2023 Nuggets.

The Warriors being a 67-win team doesn’t matter when trying to simply assess how hard their opponents were as a way to denigrate their achievement of winning the title. If you’re trying to assess how hard the title run was *for them* then it’s no longer a discussion that leads to any negative conclusion about the Warriors if it was easy. If the title run was easy because Steph and the Warriors were historically good, then that reflects well on them, rather than being something that could downplay what they did!

Yeah no, this just doesn't make any sense. How good the Warriors were absolutely matters in the context of how difficult their title run was. Quality of opponents matters but we can't just ignore how good the team beating them were. That's just silly.

[Johnny Tomala]

Not in top 15. Curry also isn't there for me.

[MavsDirk41]

15 to 25 range sounds about right. Certainly one of the greatest offensive players to ever play.

[lessthanjake]

All of this seems fair to me, but the fact that the Cavaliers were running lineups that were really suffocating defensively and fantastic on the boards is actually why they were still a pretty formidable team. Not a difficult team as Finals opponents go, but definitely no joke either. It was basically LeBron surrounded by a suffocating defense. There’s definitely easier Finals opponents than that!

Sure, but that suffocating defense only lasted for so long. It worked for about three games... and then the Warriors made an adjustment and just like that, Cleveland was screwed. Golden State taking Bogut out of the starting line up (and pretty much out of the series) and just going small from the start was an adjustment that Cleveland had no real way of responding to. Why? Because they were missing multiple rotation players to injury. If a team can't make any real adjustments on their end and have to stick with their normal group of players no matter what, that's not all that great of a team.

Again, the Hawks didn't really have the capabilities to make these kinds of adjustments. The Warriors on the other hand did. That's the difference here.

Virtually every playoff series results in the winning team making some adjustments that the other team isn’t able to respond to effectively enough. That’s why they lose! That doesn’t mean the losing team is bad, though. The Cavs weren’t as good as the Warriors, but they were good enough to be a pretty tough opponent. Prime LeBron + a suffocating defense and great rebounding is not a juggernaut but it’s still a pretty tough team. If your point is just that the Warriors were better than those Cavs, then you’re right, but then that’s obvious since they ultimately won the series in 6 games. The question we’re discussing is whether it was an easy path relative to other paths that teams have had to the title (remember: this discussion initially came up because someone said the Warriors “played a very weak path” in winning the title, so it pretty clearly is about opponent strength in a vaccum), and I wouldn’t say the 2015 Cavs were on the tough end of Finals opponents, but there’s been plenty of easier ones too.

Okay, as an initial matter, I cannot ever be convinced that Patrick Beverly being out matters much. He’s just not a very good player. For reference, his EPM that year was +0.1 (including a negative defensive EPM). They started Jason Terry in his place, who had a +0.3 EPM (including a positive defensive EPM). And, overall, those Rockets were actually healthier in the playoffs than they tended to have been in the regular season. Dwight had missed half the season but was there for the playoffs. Jones had only played 33 regular season games, but was there for the playoffs. Brewer only played 56 games but was there for the playoffs. Josh Smith had played 55 games but was there for the playoffs. They were healthier for the playoffs than they had tended to be in the regular season where they won 56 games. If anything, I’d say health is a factor that makes those Rockets look better than their regular season results would suggest.

First off, EPM is a terrible defensive metric to use for a PG's defensive capabilities. I almost never use defensive EPM when judging a PG's defensive impact and usually, it doesn't paint an accurate picture on how much of an impact they truly have. I do agree that Beverly has a lot of flaws as a player, even at this peak, but his ability to harass and bother opposing guards and even forwards can't be ignored (and I say this as someone who has Beverly as one of his least favorite players of all time). Not to mention, Beverly was second team all defense the previous season. He was clearly, at the very least, an elite defensive player. Having him around would have helped immensely and you can't tell me otherwise.

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=NBADefense

This is Beverly guarding Curry in 2021. You're telling me a much younger Beverly couldn't have made a difference? I'm not saying Rockets win that series if he plays, but Curry definitely has a much tougher time getting his buckets. We all saw what Delly did to Curry that year... you can't tell me Beverly wouldn't do something similar.

As an initial matter, EPM actually using defensive tracking data, so it’s a pretty good defensive stat IMO. But in any event, you’re not going to convince me that Beverly is good or particularly impactful. I’ve never been impressed with him in any game I’ve ever seen him play. And, more generally, although he was out in the playoffs, the Rockets were still quite obviously significantly more healthy than they were on average during the regular season—and they had won 56 regular season games. As I noted before, their second best player had missed half the season, and several major role players had missed a lot of games, and those guys were there for the playoffs. Even if you think Beverly being absent in the playoffs actually matters, we are still pretty obviously talking about a team that won 56 games and was healthier in the playoffs than they had been in the regular season. I think it’d be hard to portray that as an easy opponent. They weren’t a juggernaut, but they were a tough opponent.

If you want to discount the Rockets because they had Harden and you think Harden is a playoff “choker” then I guess you can do that. But we should remember that a good part of the reason Harden has a reputation as a playoff choker is precisely because in his prime he lost four times in the playoffs to the Warriors.

Um, no. A good part of the reason why Harden has that reputation is because he averages 22 PPG from the field in elimination games on 57% TS with 4.4 TPG. He just isn't good in elimination game situations.

It’s worth noting that 2015 Harden had just put up 31/8/7 on 56% TS% in an elimination game the previous round against the team with the second-best SRS in the NBA, so he’d done well in a crucial elimination game in those particular playoffs. Talking about elimination playoff games is mostly just small sample size theater though, not to mention that the 2018 Rockets could absolutely have won the title without facing an elimination game at all. And I promise you that if the 2018 Rockets had won a title (which they almost certainly would’ve without the Warriors, and probably would’ve even if the Warriors just didn’t have KD), you would not be hearing essentially anyone talking about Harden as a playoff choker. Heck, if the Warriors had been less good in 2015, the Rockets probably might well have won the title that year, since my guess is they’d probably have been able to squeak by the injured Cavs (though it probably would’ve been a close series), and I don’t think any other team on the Warriors’ side of the Western Conference bracket would’ve beaten them. The Warriors really are the main reason Harden has that reputation. They’re not the only reason, but he wouldn’t have that reputation without them, because he’d be sitting on 1 or 2 titles. So yeah, I think the argument that the Rockets weren’t a tough playoff opponent for the Warriors because they were led by a playoff choker is pretty circular when we realize that he wouldn’t be seen as a playoff choker if the Warriors hadn’t been so good that they always beat him.

He might well have won a title if the Steph and the Warriors hadn’t been so good—in fact, I’d say it’s extremely likely they would’ve at least won in 2018. In which case, Harden suddenly wouldn’t be known as a playoff choker at all. So I just find it a bit odd to downplay the Warriors’ accomplishment of beating the Rockets on the basis that Harden is a playoff “choker” in large part due to frequently losing to the Warriors. Seems like somewhat circular reasoning, in a way.

Sure, they win in 2018 if it wasn't for the Warriors, but he wouldn't have been the main reason. Chris Paul arriving really turned that team around. And they had a terrific supporting cast around their superstar duo. I have every reason to believe that if the Rockets had won that year, Paul would have been the FMVP, not Harden.

Chris Paul would almost certainly not have been Finals MVP if the 2018 Rockets won the title. For one thing, the 2018 Rockets probably win the title *without Chris Paul* playing in the Finals (or only playing part of the Finals) if they’d just not gone historically cold from three in Game 7 against the Warriors. They very likely beat the 2018 Cavs without Chris Paul. If we instead assume Chris Paul doesn’t get injured and that’s why they beat the Warriors, then I still see no reason to think that. Chris Paul certainly wasn’t on his way to being MVP of the series against the Warriors when he got injured (which, needless to say, was a tougher series than the Finals would’ve been). When Chris Paul went out, Harden was averaging 27.4/5.4/5.2 on 54% TS%, while Chris Paul was averaging 19.8/6.8/4.6 on 52% TS%. Harden was the MVP of the series for the Rockets at the point Chris Paul went down with the Rockets up 3-2. Harden’s had also been their better player over the course of the prior two rounds. Chris Paul was good enough that it is *possible* he could’ve nabbed Finals MVP by just having an amazing series, but what had actually happened in those playoffs us gives no indication that that’s what would’ve occurred. Meanwhile, that was understood to be Harden’s team, and Harden was regular season MVP, and that comes with a pretty strong presumption that he’ll be Finals MVP if they win the title. If they got past the Warriors and won the title, it is highly likely Harden would’ve been Finals MVP. I just think it’s rhetorical wishful thinking to imagine that the 2018 Rockets would win the title and Harden would not get his flowers.

And the idea that Chris Paul “turned that team around” is pretty odd. Chris Paul is a great player who improved that team, as we would expect from the arrival of a player that good. But the Rockets had won 55 games and had a 5.84 SRS the prior year, without Chris Paul (and simply lost in the playoffs to a 61-win, 7.13 SRS team). There wasn’t anything to “turn around.” They were already a great team! Chris Paul simply made them even better.

I wouldn’t say there’s any specific series that is “particularly” impressive. They didn’t beat a juggernaut. So there’s definitely plenty of harder title runs out there. But they faced some difficult opponents, and there’s definitely easier title runs out there too. It’s just somewhere in the middle 50% IMO.

In terms of what? Every Finals winner in NBA history? If so, then sure. But we're going off of WarriorGM's timeline of every team since 2015, and in that regard, they're nearly at the bottom, only being bested by the 2017 Warriors and 2023 Nuggets.

I don’t want to argue about specific playoff runs, but I’d say the following teams since 2015 probably had easier runs to the title in terms of the quality of opposition they had to play: 2020 Lakers, 2021 Bucks, 2023 Nuggets, and 2024 Celtics. The Bucks one is arguable, depending on what we think of the 2021 Suns, as well as our assessment of exactly how hard the Nets were given their rapidly deteriorating health over the course of the series, but the Hawks were such a gimme putt that I tend to lean very slightly towards that run being easier. The 2017 Warriors’ run also may have been easier, depending on whether we think the 2017 Cavs were a juggernaut despite their fairly middling regular season record—it was an easier run before the Finals, but I could see thinking the Cavs were so good that the run was harder (though obviously not harder for the Warriors themselves, since they were so incredibly good that year). The 2022 Warriors’ run was probably a little more difficult IMO, just by virtue of the Celtics being a tougher Finals opponent, but even that one is arguable. The only runs that were definitely harder were the 2016 Cavs, the 2018 Warriors, and the 2019 Raptors. So yeah, I’d say thinking about each individual year in the last decade confirms to me that this was solidly somewhere in the middle 50% in terms of difficulty.

The Warriors being a 67-win team doesn’t matter when trying to simply assess how hard their opponents were as a way to denigrate their achievement of winning the title. If you’re trying to assess how hard the title run was *for them* then it’s no longer a discussion that leads to any negative conclusion about the Warriors if it was easy. If the title run was easy because Steph and the Warriors were historically good, then that reflects well on them, rather than being something that could downplay what they did!

Yeah no, this just doesn't make any sense. How good the Warriors were absolutely matters in the context of how difficult their title run was. Quality of opponents matters but we can't just ignore how good the team beating them were. That's just silly.

I think you may be talking about something different than anyone else is. If you’re talking about how difficult the playoff run was for the actual team themselves to get through, then that’s a very very different question than talking about how difficult the playoff run was when just looking at the opponents and not thinking about how good the title-winning team itself was. And it leads to very different conclusions about a team if we assert that the run was “easy.” If a pretty difficult set of teams was nevertheless easy for a title-winner to get through because they just were that good, then that’s a credit to that team! But if a title-winning team’s opponents were not very good, then that fact would tend to downplay the title-winning team’s achievement of winning the title. I take the discussion to have originated as being about the latter—i.e. that the 2015 Warriors winning without Durant wasn’t very impressive because their opponents were easy. You’re instead arguing the former—i.e. that the 2015 Warriors had an easy run because they were really good.

As it relates to the topic of this thread, those two things would lead to *very different* conclusions about Kevin Durant. If the 2015 Warriors winning without Durant wasn’t very impressive because their opponents were easy, then that would tend to make us give Durant a whole lot of credit for their title-winning success after he showed up. But if the 2015 Warriors won the title pretty easily because they were just really good, then that would tend to make us give Durant not much credit for their title-winning success after he showed up. So this is a really crucial distinction for purposes of this thread. For what it’s worth, I actually *think* we’re on the same page about this overall, since I think we both regard the 2015 Warriors as having been a really great team.

[Special_Puppy]

I don't hold the 23 path against Jokic, but I don't think it has the incredible value some here think it does. Like, I don't think it proves more than the wins I mentioned by KDs OKC teams do. Why would it? He beat lesser teams.

I agree Westbrook was better, by alot, than any teammate Jokic has had. But those OKC teams had terrible spacing and shooting compared to the other top teams in the league during their time, and always played a lane clogging center (Perkins and later Adams) way too much. Top to bottom they were pretty poor rosters, especially compared to the teams they beat that I mentioned. KD and Russ were just that good.

I don't think 2016 Steph outplayed Durant at all in that series, the warriors just had more shooting and OKCs offense ground to a halt due to their lack of it. The 2015 warriors also broke through the year KD was out for OKC. Who knows how that would've looked. He only got the 1 crack at LeBron with OKC, and that was an extremely young OKC team. And he did beat that historic spurs collective, more than once, as mentioned.

I get slamming him for going to Golden State (although it did turn them to maybe the most talented team ever) but I think his accomplishments prior to going there get overlooked. If Westbrook didn't get hurt in 2013, OKC was the favorite to come out of the west, losing to the 2014 spurs is nothing to be ashamed of, and then KD was hurt in 2015. Coming up 1 game short in 2016 of knocking off the 67 win spurs and 73 win warriors without HCA also isn't something to knock him on. His last real gasp while being elite seems to have been 2021 brooklyn, who I maintain had Kyrie not got injured, would've beaten Milwaukee and gone on to win the title. He's had some bad breaks injury wise that led to some missed titles. Aside from in 2016, I don't think Curry was ever a better player.

Well I think Curry was a better player than Durant for the most part, and I think most impact metrics would back this claim.

You mention the spacing and it's fair point. But one thing that you're overlooking is the space that was generated by Curry's gravity. He attracted a lot more attention and aggressive coverages than Durant with the threat of his pull-up shooting, and it generated more 4-on-3 opportunities, more driving lanes, more open looks. And sure, the Warriors had another all-time great shooter in Klay Thompson, but they also had some shaky 3-point shooters who all benefitted from the attention that Curry drew.

But in any case, let's not get sidetracked. I don't think you've addressed the point about the broader NBA landscape and how much more parity there is in the league now.

The Nuggets didn't face any juggernaut on their way to the Finals, that is true. They also weren't a juggernaut themselves. Jokic never playing with another All-Star, and the CBA rules, are largely responsible for this.

The Thunder faced better teams, but they were a 60-win team themselves. Playing with another legend in Westbrook helped in this regard, but so did the CBA of the time, which created more disparity between teams.

The NBA today is much flatter. It's harder to be a juggernaut, and it's harder to find juggernauts to face.

There are 3 (borderline 4 if you include the knicks, who are going to be a really tough out) this year. OKC, Boston, and Cleveland. I agree they aren't the same as the mid 2010s juggernauts, as those teams did it year after year, and only Boston has the established longevity. KDs Thunder teams took down some major teams (2012 and 2016 Spurs, 2014 Clippers). They were underdogs without homecourt in both those Spurs series. The 2016 Thunder had 10 less wins than those spurs. They won 16 less games than Golden State. That'd be like Denver beating OKC this year, then taking Boston to 7 games in the finals. I'd like to see that, the opportunity is there.

As for Curry, I'm not here to bash him. I do think it's arguable Durant was the better player when both were healthy each year aside from 2016. Durant was injured and coming off winning MVP in 2015 when Curry won his first MVP/title (and played a very weak path in doing so), and I think KD was the best player on Golden state when he was there. It was close enough to argue either way though. Durant was out in 2020, Curry was out in 2021, and I think they've been about equal the last couple years.

There's a pretty strong argument that Curry was better than Durant every single year from 2015 to 2023 (haven't thought about 2024 and 2025 yet). That's certainly what the advanced stats say (whether they be pure plus-minus or a hybrid) say. Could still have Durant about equal to Curry depending on how you value 2010 to 2014.

[Lalouie]

easily ahead of pat ewing