Dirk Nowitzki vs. Kevin Durant

[capfan33]

One thing is certain - Dirk was a more valuable weapon as the centerpiece of the offense. Considering their skillsets, I doubt he'd fare worse on a more balanced attack like Warriors offense.

Of course Durant has defensive advantage, but you have to be quite high on Durant's defense to put him ahead for careers and I am certainly not high on his defense.

Peak is arguable, careers are not. Durant keeps being overrated because people like tall, lanky shooters with exaggerated crossover.

I mostly agree with some pushback, I feel Dirk is somewhat overrated compared to KD and his low points are never talked about enough, I mean yeah KD had some under-performances but 2007 is a pretty big one for Dirk. And others. Plus he really fell off defensively in his 30s in a way i can’t really say KD did though.

I'd say it's Durant whose lows are heavily overlooked.

Easy to overlook when he’s had so many.

As for the question, think it’s Dirk for both although modernly I’d prob take KD because he’s more adaptable as a second option across a variety of teams, and Dirks defensive issues would be more pronounced.

[One_and_Done]

KD's 'lows'... how many of them occur in his prime, and are his fault and not the fault of the team around him? Not many I'd say.

[70sFan]

KD's 'lows'... how many of them occur in his prime, and are his fault and not the fault of the team around him? Not many I'd say.

Unless you think Durant has 5 years prime - plenty of them happened during his prime.

[One_and_Done]

KD's 'lows'... how many of them occur in his prime, and are his fault and not the fault of the team around him? Not many I'd say.

Unless you think Durant has 5 years prime - plenty of them happened during his prime.

Do tell.

[70sFan]

KD's 'lows'... how many of them occur in his prime, and are his fault and not the fault of the team around him? Not many I'd say.

Unless you think Durant has 5 years prime - plenty of them happened during his prime.

Do tell.

2010 vs Lakers
2011 vs Mavs
2013 vs Grizzlies (I know Russell didn't play, but he wasn't good)
2016 vs Warriors (horrible end of the series)
2022 vs Celtics


I won't even mention some weaker series that happened during the other years.

[One_and_Done]

Unless you think Durant has 5 years prime - plenty of them happened during his prime.

Do tell.

2010 vs Lakers
2011 vs Mavs
2013 vs Grizzlies (I know Russell didn't play, but he wasn't good)
2016 vs Warriors (horrible end of the series)
2022 vs Celtics

I won't even mention some weaker series that happened during the other years.

So you've included seasons when KD was 21 and 33, the latter while facing a team with elite wings to stick on him, and 2 other seasons when his team was clearly outgunned. That leaves, what, 2011? KD wasn't great in 2011 vs the Mavs, but he certainly wasn't bad given the circumstances. He was also still only 22, it's not exactly shocking that he might not have his best series against a team who was destroying everyone that playoffs.

I'm not even going to say some of these weren't slight let downs, but I think it's dubious that KD's failures are being overlooked. Dirk has had more serious failures than these dubious examples.

[Texas Chuck]

I laid out Dirk's failures. So yeah hard no on more serious failures. Unless you overweight 07.

But let me remind everyone about Dallas in 06-07. They went 2-8 against GSW. They went 67-11 against the rest of the league.

Look at that one more time. 8 of their 19 total losses to that team. It was a bad matchup against their former coach. And even with that, Dirk had two bad shooting games. His overall series was fine.

His other "failings" were in a series his team still won and one stinker of a game as a 8th seed against an all-time playoff juggernaut. Oh yeah and if you are dismissing an age 33 season, well Dirk was more than 2 years older...

There are arguments for KD over Dirk, largely box score based, but playoff performance probably isn't where you want to start. Nor is being an offensive anchor.

And for those two guys specifically being the better offensive anchor and more consistent playoff performer should make Dirk the clear choice for career.

And its worth noting how much KD patterned his game after Dirk's. Even KD understands just how great Dirk was.

[jdzimme3]

Durant was more dynamic and versatile on both ends of the floor so I picked kd for both. That said, they are within 5-10 spots all time and I would have them in the same general tier.

[One_and_Done]

Durant was more dynamic and versatile on both ends of the floor so I picked kd for both. That said, they are within 5-10 spots all time and I would have them in the same general tier.

Agreed. KD being borderline top 10 all-time shouldn't diminish Dirk, who is around 15. KD was just a better player though, and on the whole he performed like it.

KD was given some really poor circumstances for many years, from injuries to poorly constructed teams. In OKC the 2nd best shooter in the starting line-up with him was usually Serge Ibaka, next to Westbrick, Adams, and Roberson. That's horrific spacing.

KD didn't exactly have terrible career luck, but I think the years his teams came up short are pretty explainable and not his fault. I like his excuses (injuries, poorly constructed roster, etc) over some of Dirk's excuses (that 8th seed team just matched up really good against us, the refs had it in for us, other team was arguably kinda better than us maybe, etc).

I am no Dirk hater, and have him top 15ish all-time, but those are some weak excuses. If you're a top 15 player of all-time, you shouldn't be losing to the 8th seed if you're healthy. You shouldn't lose to the most dubious champs of the past 25 years in 06. You shouldn't even be losing to the post-injury Webber Kings in 04 (Dirk had Nash, Finley, J.Howard, Jamison, Walker, etc, that series). I actually think some of the blame goes to coaching, because in 04 they weren't playing line-ups that optimised Dirk, but there are a bunch of losses that really do make you raise your eyebrows, e.g. 02 Kings, 08 Hornets, 09 Nuggets, etc. These aren't horrible losses, but they are losses that you'd sort of expect a player of Dirk's supposed calibre to clinch.

[Statlanta]

Dirk for both

Intangibles and Durability should bridge any gap Durant has.

[70sFan]

Do tell.

2010 vs Lakers
2011 vs Mavs
2013 vs Grizzlies (I know Russell didn't play, but he wasn't good)
2016 vs Warriors (horrible end of the series)
2022 vs Celtics

I won't even mention some weaker series that happened during the other years.

So you've included seasons when KD was 21 and 33, the latter while facing a team with elite wings to stick on him, and 2 other seasons when his team was clearly outgunned. That leaves, what, 2011? KD wasn't great in 2011 vs the Mavs, but he certainly wasn't bad given the circumstances. He was also still only 22, it's not exactly shocking that he might not have his best series against a team who was destroying everyone that playoffs.

I'm not even going to say some of these weren't slight let downs, but I think it's dubious that KD's failures are being overlooked. Dirk has had more serious failures than these dubious examples.

So you exclude everything before 2012 and after 2021, which gives Durant a prime worth of 8 years (excluding missed 2015 and 2020). I have no idea how you can make a case for him hovering around top 10 if that's the case.

Also, what kind of excuse is "the latter while facing a team with elite wings to stick on him"? Yeah, great players are expected to play well under rough circumstances. Nobody expected the Nets to dominate the Celtics, but Durant was horrible in that series.

You also ignored 2013 and 2016 for some reason, 2014 wasn't pretty against the Spurs either.

Durant is a great player, but he's not even remotely close to top 10 all-time if you care about postseason play.

[One_and_Done]

2010 vs Lakers
2011 vs Mavs
2013 vs Grizzlies (I know Russell didn't play, but he wasn't good)
2016 vs Warriors (horrible end of the series)
2022 vs Celtics

I won't even mention some weaker series that happened during the other years.

So you've included seasons when KD was 21 and 33, the latter while facing a team with elite wings to stick on him, and 2 other seasons when his team was clearly outgunned. That leaves, what, 2011? KD wasn't great in 2011 vs the Mavs, but he certainly wasn't bad given the circumstances. He was also still only 22, it's not exactly shocking that he might not have his best series against a team who was destroying everyone that playoffs.

I'm not even going to say some of these weren't slight let downs, but I think it's dubious that KD's failures are being overlooked. Dirk has had more serious failures than these dubious examples.

So you exclude everything before 2012 and after 2021, which gives Durant a prime worth of 8 years (excluding missed 2015 and 2020). I have no idea how you can make a case for him hovering around top 10 if that's the case.

Also, what kind of excuse is "the latter while facing a team with elite wings to stick on him"? Yeah, great players are expected to play well under rough circumstances. Nobody expected the Nets to dominate the Celtics, but Durant was horrible in that series.

You also ignored 2013 and 2016 for some reason, 2014 wasn't pretty against the Spurs either.

Durant is a great player, but he's not even remotely close to top 10 all-time if you care about postseason play.

I'm not ignoring any years, I'm applying context to them. The first bit of context we should ask is 'how many of those series should KD have been expected to win?' The answer is zero.

The next bit of context is how did he play. The answer is a little subpar for some of them, but the only genuinely disappointing series were at age 21 and 33, against top tier teams with elite defenses. That's probably not a coincidence, and ties into the 3rd bit of context; when your support cast is bad, it can affect your own offensive performance because the other team can pressure you alot more. Honestly, 21 yr old KD probably played better than Kobe in the Lakers series, but he was 21 and outgunned. The next year KD had improved and it was a different story.

Dirks shortcomings look alot less justified.

[70sFan]

So you've included seasons when KD was 21 and 33, the latter while facing a team with elite wings to stick on him, and 2 other seasons when his team was clearly outgunned. That leaves, what, 2011? KD wasn't great in 2011 vs the Mavs, but he certainly wasn't bad given the circumstances. He was also still only 22, it's not exactly shocking that he might not have his best series against a team who was destroying everyone that playoffs.

I'm not even going to say some of these weren't slight let downs, but I think it's dubious that KD's failures are being overlooked. Dirk has had more serious failures than these dubious examples.

So you exclude everything before 2012 and after 2021, which gives Durant a prime worth of 8 years (excluding missed 2015 and 2020). I have no idea how you can make a case for him hovering around top 10 if that's the case.

Also, what kind of excuse is "the latter while facing a team with elite wings to stick on him"? Yeah, great players are expected to play well under rough circumstances. Nobody expected the Nets to dominate the Celtics, but Durant was horrible in that series.

You also ignored 2013 and 2016 for some reason, 2014 wasn't pretty against the Spurs either.

Durant is a great player, but he's not even remotely close to top 10 all-time if you care about postseason play.

I'm not ignoring any years, I'm applying context to them. The first bit of context we should ask is 'how many of those series should KD have been expected to win?' The answer is zero.

The next bit of context is how did he play. The answer is a little subpar for some of them, but the only genuinely disappointing series were at age 21 and 33, against top tier teams with elite defenses. That's probably not a coincidence, and ties into the 3rd bit of context; when your support cast is bad, it can affect your own offensive performance because the other team can pressure you alot more. Honestly, 21 yr old KD probably played better than Kobe in the Lakers series, but he was 21 and outgunned. The next year KD had improved and it was a different story.

Dirks shortcomings look alot less justified.

He wasn't expected to beat the depleted Warriors while leading 3-1? He wasn't expected to beat Grizzlies? He shouldn't have played better against the Spurs in 2014?

I'd say he was very disappointing against the Grizzlies in 2013 and especially against the Spurs in 2014, considering his amazing RS performance.

It's also funny that you mention supporting cast, like Durant didn't play with elite teams basically every year of his prime. Especially in comparison to Dirk, who played the majority of his career without secondary star next to him.

You say that Durant's shortcomings in OKC are justified, but you can't justify Dirk losing against the Kings in 2002 - a team that was basically the best in the league. Yeah, sure thing - context indeed.

[One_and_Done]

So you exclude everything before 2012 and after 2021, which gives Durant a prime worth of 8 years (excluding missed 2015 and 2020). I have no idea how you can make a case for him hovering around top 10 if that's the case.

Also, what kind of excuse is "the latter while facing a team with elite wings to stick on him"? Yeah, great players are expected to play well under rough circumstances. Nobody expected the Nets to dominate the Celtics, but Durant was horrible in that series.

You also ignored 2013 and 2016 for some reason, 2014 wasn't pretty against the Spurs either.

Durant is a great player, but he's not even remotely close to top 10 all-time if you care about postseason play.

I'm not ignoring any years, I'm applying context to them. The first bit of context we should ask is 'how many of those series should KD have been expected to win?' The answer is zero.

The next bit of context is how did he play. The answer is a little subpar for some of them, but the only genuinely disappointing series were at age 21 and 33, against top tier teams with elite defenses. That's probably not a coincidence, and ties into the 3rd bit of context; when your support cast is bad, it can affect your own offensive performance because the other team can pressure you alot more. Honestly, 21 yr old KD probably played better than Kobe in the Lakers series, but he was 21 and outgunned. The next year KD had improved and it was a different story.

Dirks shortcomings look alot less justified.

He wasn't expected to beat the depleted Warriors while leading 3-1? He wasn't expected to beat Grizzlies? He shouldn't have played better against the Spurs in 2014?

I'd say he was very disappointing against the Grizzlies in 2013 and especially against the Spurs in 2014, considering his amazing RS performance.

It's also funny that you mention supporting cast, like Durant didn't play with elite teams basically every year of his prime. Especially in comparison to Dirk, who played the majority of his career without secondary star next to him.

You say that Durant's shortcomings in OKC are justified, but you can't justify Dirk losing against the Kings in 2002 - a team that was basically the best in the league. Yeah, sure thing - context indeed.

When I talk about expectations, I'm talking about what the expectations should have been based on an objective assessment of the teams; not hype. Nobody expected the Thunder to beat the 73 win Warriors... then KD powered them to a 3-1 lead and expectations got readjusted upwards... but in reality it was incredible that KD got them as close to winning as he did, and that team had no business beating the Warriors with the God awful spacing around KD of Westbrook/Ibaka/Adams/Roberson.

Similarly, with the benefit of hindsight and objectivity we can admit that the Grizzlies were clearly more talented than the Thunder sans Westbrook. I'm not sure what series you were watching in 2014, but KD did play well against the Spurs while dropping 26-8-3 on 560 TS%. It wasn't KDs fault his team was outgunned (and that Ibaka missed 2 games that they went 0-2 in). You are comparing KD unfavourably to himself, not Dirk, and failing to account for the fact that he's obviously going to be easier to defend when the other team is locking down in the playoffs and he's got no shooting around him (or Westbrook/whoever is injured).

As for who had more elite teams, there's different ways of looking at it. Obviously KD had better team mates overall, but it was also mostly a different time when top end teams were better and more stacked. Dirk's teams were very flush with talent during his prime, given the relative talent of opposing teams. Super teams were much more rare back then. Like, the 02 Kings were a stacked team for sure. Nobody at the time thought the Mavs would beat them. Looking back though with hindsight, and knowing what we now know about how the careers of Dirk, Nash, etc, unfolded, should the Mavs really have lost? It feels like if Dirk and Nash were both top 20 players, which is where I'd rank them, then they really should have won more given the talent around them

[70sFan]

When I talk about expectations, I'm talking about what the expectations should have been based on an objective assessment of the teams; not hype. Nobody expected the Thunder to beat the 73 win Warriors... then KD powered them to a 3-1 lead and expectations got readjusted upwards... but in reality it was incredible that KD got them as close to winning as he did,

Durant averaged 28.5/8.8/2.5 on 55.9 TS% with 4.3 tov and 31.3 3P%. I mean, i wouldn't call that powering them to 3-1 lead when he had a teammate averaging 27.3/6.5/11.8 on 55.8 TS% with 4.0 tov and 36.4 3P%. Numbers and contemporary perception suggest that Westbrook was better in the first 4 games than Durant.

It wasn't a disaster series for Durant, but he definitely didn't play offensively up to his level and don't act like the Warriors were at their full strengths.

and that team had no business beating the Warriors with the God awful spacing around KD of Westbrook/Ibaka/Adams/Roberson.

OKC won 2 games in the series with Durant really struggling, so I wouldn't say he doesn't have enough help from his teammates. Durant actually shot the worst 3P% among non-centers in the whole series. Ibaka was a good stretch 4 for that time (he's a better shooter than Draymond for example), they also had Waiters and Foy.

Similarly, with the benefit of hindsight and objectivity we can admit that the Grizzlies were clearly more talented than the Thunder sans Westbrook.

They were more well rounded, but it doesn't explain the margin of victory. Granted, it was quite close series for a 5 games one, but they still lost in 5 and Durant struggled in that one heavily.

Besides, they faced each other the next year with healthy Westbrook and they still struggled a lot to beat them - and Durant struggled immensely again.

I'm not sure what series you were watching in 2014, but KD did play well against the Spurs while dropping 26-8-3 on 560 TS%. It wasn't KDs fault his team was outgunned (and that Ibaka missed 2 games that they went 0-2 in).

First of all, these raw rounded up numbers on 39 mpg aren't really that impressive. It is yet another OKC series when Durant averages more turnovers than assists, struggles a lot from three point line and OKC offense was terribly inefficient. He yet again had Russell playing really well and you keep talking that his team was outgunned. What's the excuse for them finishing with 103 ORtg and why is it not on Durant being inefficient as a secondary playmaker?

You are comparing KD unfavourably to himself, not Dirk, and failing to account for the fact that he's obviously going to be easier to defend when the other team is locking down in the playoffs and he's got no shooting around him (or Westbrook/whoever is injured).

I am comparing KD both to Dirk and to himself in the RS. Not being able to roughly maintain your offensive production in tough circumstances exclude you from top 10 talks, unless you are elite defender which neither of compared players are.

Dirk also has his share of underperformances, that's why I don't entertain the idea of him hovering around top 10. It's not me who advocates any of these players being that high.

As for who had more elite teams, there's different ways of looking at it. Obviously KD had better team mates overall, but it was also mostly a different time when top end teams were better and more stacked.

It's not true, there were plenty of seasons during Dirk's career when top teams were utterly stacked.

Dirk's teams were very flush with talent during his prime, given the relative talent of opposing teams.

When did his team was much more talented than their opponents in a losing effort, outside of 2007?

Super teams were much more rare back then.

We're talking about the era with Kobe-Shaq Lakers, Parker/Manu/Duncan Spurs, 2008 Celtics and 2008-10 Lakers, right? How are they less talented than the Heatles, 2021 Bucks or 2022 Warriors?

Like, the 02 Kings were a stacked team for sure. Nobody at the time thought the Mavs would beat them. Looking back though with hindsight, and knowing what we now know about how the careers of Dirk, Nash, etc, unfolded, should the Mavs really have lost? It feels like if Dirk and Nash were both top 20 players, which is where I'd rank them, then they really should have won more given the talent around them

That's not hindsight, that's name counting without context. 2002 Kings were absolutely more talented and deeper team overall.

If you want to play this game, then we should 100% blame OKC for losing to 2014 Spurs.

[ball_takes23]

I'm not ignoring any years, I'm applying context to them. The first bit of context we should ask is 'how many of those series should KD have been expected to win?' The answer is zero.

The next bit of context is how did he play. The answer is a little subpar for some of them, but the only genuinely disappointing series were at age 21 and 33, against top tier teams with elite defenses. That's probably not a coincidence, and ties into the 3rd bit of context; when your support cast is bad, it can affect your own offensive performance because the other team can pressure you alot more.

the issue with KD is that extra defensive pressure impacts him a lot more than his peers like Bron/Harden who are much better playmakers. If you bring extra pressure to Lebron he's gonna know exactly where the rotation is coming from ahead of time and make you pay by hitting a pinpoint pass to an open shooter. If you bring extra pressure to KD he will often times have no idea where to go with the ball, panic and throw a bad pass into heavy traffic. It's an issue that he's never really fixed but merely masked by going to an all-time team like GS where he never had to face heavy defensive pressure. Contrast that with Dirk who was able to lead elite top 3 offenses even after Nash left with guys like Josh Howard and Jason Terry (much worse supporting casts than KD had).

[lessthanjake]

I don’t think Durant really has almost any playoff series that looks *that* bad for him.

Let’s go through his lost series:

1. He was definitely rough in the loss to the Lakers in 2010. If we look at it in the context of him having been #2 in MVP voting that year, it’s definitely a bad series. But he was also 21 years old and facing that year’s title winner. So this one, on its own, doesn’t move me too much, at least when we’re not comparing him to GOAT-level guys.

2. He was definitely not bad in the 2011 loss to the Mavericks. He put up 28/9/4 on 55% TS%. Granted, that was in a lot of minutes, so the production is maybe less good than it looks on a per-game basis, but we should also remember this was against that year’s champion. Several all-time greats played the 2011 Mavs in that postseason: Kobe, Durant, Westbrook, LeBron, and Wade. And only Wade actually played better against them than Durant did. So this one seems fine to me. He didn’t go out in a complete blaze of glory, but it was a solid series.

3. In 2012 against the Heat, Durant was actually good. He put up 31 points a game on 65% TS%. Granted, he wasn’t much of a playmaker in the series, but he did well and his team simply lost.

4. I see some criticisms of the 2013 loss against the Grizzlies. And, to some degree, I get it, since the Grizzlies weren’t a powerhouse. But Durant put up 29/10/7 on 53% TS%. That TS% perhaps looks a little low, but it was still a +1.5% rTS%. Again, he didn’t go out in a total blaze of glory, but I think it’d be overly harsh to act like he was bad in this series.

5. Against the Spurs in 2014, he put up 26/8/3 on +3.5% rTS%. It wasn’t incredible, and it’s not a good series if this were a GOAT discussion, but as it relates to this thread, I don’t really see this as a moving the needle against Durant—especially given that he was playing against a great team.

6. I think in 2016 it’s easy to just totally write off the series as basically “He took the 73-win Warriors to 7 games, so he cannot be criticized for it.” That, to me, is overly simplistic, because I really don’t think the 2016 Warriors were anywhere near a 73-win level in the playoffs, given Steph’s injury. They were more like a 6.5 to 8.0 SRS team, IMO, and that’s how they played in those playoffs. Even keeping that in mind, though, Durant put up 30/8/3 on like +2 rTS%. I think one can criticize how he played in the last three games, but it’s really just Game 6. He wasn’t bad in Games 5 or 7. And when the overall numbers in a series are fine, I think it’s harsh to be overly critical about what happened in one loss. I wouldn’t say he was amazing, and I wouldn’t say taking those Warriors to 7 games is some feat to be celebrated because I think with Steph’s injury they were just a garden-variety really good team rather than being anything particularly special, but I also wouldn’t say there’s much to criticize here unless we were elevating Durant into discussions no one is putting him in.

7. In 2021 against the Bucks, Durant was genuinely great. There’s definitely nothing to criticize here.

8. Against the Celtics in 2022, Durant was genuinely bad. This one is worthy of criticism. It’s definitely in the tail end of his prime though, so there’s a limit to how much weight we should put on it IMO. But this is the worst one, along with 2010, IMO.

9. He was okay against the Nuggets in 2023. He did put up 30/10/5, though the shooting efficiency and turnovers weren’t good. If this happened smack in the middle of his prime, then I think I might criticize the efficiency more, but in the tail end of his prime playing against that year’s champion (and on a team he’d only just joined), I think it’s harsh to criticize it all that much.

10. His team got destroyed by the Timberwolves in 2024, but Durant was actually good offensively—putting up 27/7/3 on 65% TS% against a great defense. The Timberwolves dominated the Suns on the other end, and Durant can get some share of the criticism for that, but I don’t really think this series at age 35 is ripe for criticism, unless we’re putting Durant in discussions he’s not being put in.

I think what we have here is basically series that can be put in three categories: (1) a few series where Durant was genuinely good and his team still lost; (2) several series where Durant was solid but not amazing and his team lost, where we might criticize it if it were a GOAT discussion, but in this context I just think it’d be very harsh to act like it moves the needle against him; and (3) series in 2010 and 2022 that were genuinely bad but were at the very beginning and end of his prime. IMO, this just clearly isn’t a guy where individual playoff struggles is a particularly pertinent narrative.

[One_and_Done]

So most of my response is covered above. Just on Dirk though...were there some super teams in his day? Sure. I think Shaq and Kobe for instance qualified. Mostly not though, and Manu/Parker/Duncan certainly wasn't what we'd think of as a super team. Manu also wasn't any sort of star until 05, and Parker was a fringe all-star, and didn't really hit his prime until after that. Given Duncan's prime ended in 07, I don't think many of the Spurs teams in Duncan's era could be considered particularly super in the sense that term is typically used, even if you disagree with the exact end of Duncan's prime.

Moreover, Dirk wasn't losing to the Shaq/Kobe Lakers every year, mostly he was losing to teams that were by no means super teams. Super teams after Shaq/Kobe mostly went on hiatus, and only started up again in 08 when the Lakers/Celtics were formed. After that they became more common.

Teams like the 02 Kings, 08 Hornets, and 09 Nuggets, were good teams, but they weren't super teams and in the case of the Kings they get more fondly remembered for the exciting playoff series against the Lakers combined with a fun play style. In reality though, given all Dirk had around him, I'm really not sure he should have been losing as a top 15 player. Dirk and Nash were slept on in the early 00s because their greatness wasn't fully appreciated. But if you were asked to rank them both after 2011 then they'd be considered bona fide top 20 guys. A team with two top 20 all-time guys, plus good support besides them, really shouldn't have a problem with the 02 Kings. The whole reason the Kings had a chance vs the Lakers was because they didn't have much outside their 2 stars. Dirk & Nash had a star guard in Finley, along with Van Exel, Raef, Najera, A.Griffin, etc. That's a ton of support. To get folded in a pretty uncompetitive 1-4 loss is kind of embarrassing in hindsight. The Kings didn't even have Peja for 2 of those games.

[70sFan]

So we all agree that both Dirk and Durant don't touch top 10 all-time. I'm glad we reached the consensus.

[One_and_Done]

KD is borderline top 10, Dirk is more like 15th. That shouldn't strike you as a radical notion for people who aren't including guys like Russell, Wilt, Oscar, West, or Mikan in their top 20.