Jerry West vs Kevin Durant

[One_and_Done]

Sometimes that is reasonable for this type of comparison, generally it is not. If a player is playing in the 1960s, you have to assume they will not be wearing 21st century shoes or playing in 21st century coaching schemes.

Instead you have to try to think how they will fit into a hawk or post centric offense designed to maximize fast breaks, post touches, and rebounding because that was the norm. There were a few offenses that used the big as a passing hub from the high post rather than a scoring hub from the low post and the much hated Butch Van Breda Koff used a version of the Princeton offense to try to get around the fact that the Lakers had centers that weren't very good at any of those things.

But the idea that you have a 2021 style offense trying to maximize open 24' foot shots in 1969 is no more realistic than the idea that a 60s player, even the best shooter in the league (which was quite probably West) is going to suddenly have a bag of tricks developed to get space at the 24' mark by step backs and high screens or be able to have the modern handles of a Kyrie Irving using modern dribbling methods although guys like Marques Haynes used them in Globetrotter games where referees let them do so for entertainment value. Players develop within the context of the game as it exists, even the greatest of them.

You have your criteria, I have mine. I am not going to rate guys on the assumption that their coaches will misuse their skillset. I make the same assumption for forward translation, as I assume Russell's skilset would be deployed optimally today.

[tsherkin]

KD would be very lucky to have a 10 year career in the 60s with all the lower body injuries he’s had even with modern day equipment. He’d go to college for 4 years, enter the nba at 22, and probably be finished by the time he’s 29

A lot of that has to do with era differences, though. He wouldnt be stressing his body/joints the same way in the 60s because he wouldnt be changing directions the same way. KD's ENTIRE on-ball game us literally built around hesis and carries which would be thoroughly illegal in the 60s, and that is where most of his injuries likely originate.

[ball_takes23]

KD would be very lucky to have a 10 year career in the 60s with all the lower body injuries he’s had even with modern day equipment. He’d go to college for 4 years, enter the nba at 22, and probably be finished by the time he’s 29

A lot of that has to do with era differences, though. He wouldnt be stressing his body/joints the same way in the 60s because he wouldnt be changing directions the same way. KD's ENTIRE on-ball game us literally built around hesis and carries which would be thoroughly illegal in the 60s, and that is where most of his injuries likely originate.

the Jones fracture that he had early in his career was a classic big man injury that Yao Ming and a bunch of other less mobile 7 footers have had. I dont think theres any evidence that he wouldnt have suffered with the same issues back in the 60s playing in worse shoes and worse hardwood. The achilles you could argue was due to modern playing style, but theres a very good chance he doesnt play long enough in the 60s to even have to worry about that, foot injuries for big men were a death sentence back in the day.

[D.Brasco]

KD would be very lucky to have a 10 year career in the 60s with all the lower body injuries he’s had even with modern day equipment. He’d go to college for 4 years, enter the nba at 22, and probably be finished by the time he’s 29

A lot of that has to do with era differences, though. He wouldnt be stressing his body/joints the same way in the 60s because he wouldnt be changing directions the same way. KD's ENTIRE on-ball game us literally built around hesis and carries which would be thoroughly illegal in the 60s, and that is where most of his injuries likely originate.

Would someone built like KD even be playing the same position, if he came up in the 60s? He'd be a very lanky 6'10" guy, they'd probably try to play him like a Bill Russell rather than a wing.

[tsherkin]

the Jones fracture that he had early in his career was a classic big man injury that Yao Ming and a bunch of other less mobile 7 footers have had. I dont think theres any evidence that he wouldnt have suffered with the same issues back in the 60s playing in worse shoes and worse hardwood. The achilles you could argue was due to modern playing style, but theres a very good chance he doesnt play long enough in the 60s to even have to worry about that, foot injuries for big men were a death sentence back in the day.

If OKC hadn't VIOLENTLY mismanaged that injury, I don't think it would have been a huge issue. But even then, he's generally been reasonably healthy. And that was like 7, 8 years into his career to begin with. I don't think the 60s would have been a huge issue for him. He's not 7'5 and 300 lbs, he's a skinny 6'10 - 7' dude.

Would someone built like KD even be playing the same position, if he came up in the 60s? He'd be a very lanky 6'10" guy, they'd probably try to play him like a Bill Russell rather than a wing.

Like I said before, there were face-up bigs in the league even in the 60s, and especially in the 70s. It wasn't unheard of. They didn't shoot from 25 feet because there was no 3pt line, but there were 100% guys who attacked facing up from the center position back then.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Imagine if West had a 3pt line.

[One_and_Done]

Imagine if West had a 3pt line.

Imagine if Tim Duncan could shoot 3s.

[Ol Roy]

Imagine if West had a 3pt line.

Wooden's Wisdom: John Wooden Jump Shot with Jerry West

Watch on YouTube

[tsherkin]

Imagine if West had a 3pt line.

Imagine if Tim Duncan could shoot 3s.

Not a valid parallel at all.

[ShotCreator]

KD would be very lucky to have a 10 year career in the 60s with all the lower body injuries he’s had even with modern day equipment. He’d go to college for 4 years, enter the nba at 22, and probably be finished by the time he’s 29

A lot of that has to do with era differences, though. He wouldnt be stressing his body/joints the same way in the 60s because he wouldnt be changing directions the same way. KD's ENTIRE on-ball game us literally built around hesis and carries which would be thoroughly illegal in the 60s, and that is where most of his injuries likely originate.

Would someone built like KD even be playing the same position, if he came up in the 60s? He'd be a very lanky 6'10" guy, they'd probably try to play him like a Bill Russell rather than a wing.

Kevin Durant would never be a big man in any era. Didn’t have the body or instincts.


He would’ve had less of a dribble outside the lane game and more of a face up running hooks, running leaners, and of course pull up jumper kind of game. Really the exact game he actually had in his athletic prime in OKC. Without the 3, he would’ve operated closer and you used transition more but the style isn’t changing at all.

And he’d never thrive at boxing bigs out, hitting the glass, timing shot contests at the rim.


His mind and body is not aligned to it. That style of basketball wouldn’t excite him just as it didn’t now. So you wouldn’t even expect him to improve much at that style.

He’d be so good at scoring, coaches would let him naturally do whatever makes him most comfortable on the court, just like today. And it’s definitely not to bang down low with Wilt Chamberlain.

[One_and_Done]

Imagine if West had a 3pt line.

Imagine if Tim Duncan could shoot 3s.

Not a valid parallel at all.

Isn't it?

I didn't intend it to imply the 2 things were equally likely, rather that the logic of 'is it plausible this could have happened if events unfolded differently?' would allow for things like this too.

That said, Duncan shot 41% between 16 feet and the 3pt line for his career. For all we know West shot a similar number, we just don't have records of it. I wouldn't dismiss the notion of Tim developing a 3 as being so much more unlikely than West, since we have no numbers to back that up, and since West's overall career FG% was only 47%.

[penbeast0]

Imagine if Tim Duncan could shoot 3s.

Not a valid parallel at all.

Isn't it?

I didn't intend it to imply the 2 things were equally likely, rather than the logic of 'is it plausible this could have happened if events unfolded differently?' would allow for things like this too.

That said, Duncan shot 41% between 16 feet and the 3pt line for his career. For all we know West shot a similar number, we just don't have records of it. I wouldn't dismiss the notion of Tim developing a 3 as being so much more unlikely than West, since we have no numbers to back that up, and since West's overall career FG% was only 47%.

Of course the fact that West was known as quite probably the best long range shooter in basketball when he played and has a career FT% over .800 has of course no value as the most likely indicators of developing a good 3 point range v Duncan's career as a post player and FT% of 69% which make no difference to you in terms of "more unlikely."

As always, the rest of us try to use the best indicators we have to estimate how a player would react in different circumstances while you . . . don't.

[tsherkin]

Isn't it?

I didn't intend it to imply the 2 things were equally likely, rather than the logic of 'is it plausible this could have happened if events unfolded differently?' would allow for things like this too.

Well, no.

In the one set, West was KNOWN for proficient shooting at range. Duncan struggled at the foul line, and rarely exhibited strong shooting ability beyond about 16 feet. So as far as drawing parallels, it's a poor one because the one has any evidence at all for support and the other is counter to all available evidence.

That said, Duncan shot 41% between 16 feet and the 3pt line for his career. For all we know West shot a similar number, we just don't have records of it. I wouldn't dismiss the notion of Tim developing a 3 as being so much more unlikely than West, since we have no numbers to back that up, and since West's overall career FG% was only 47%.

Yes, but this is a question of being familiar with the data. Duncan wasn't regularly taking 20-footers. He started to fade out considerably beyond 17 feet, and didn't even come close to the corners. So it isn't really well-supported at all. It's POSSIBLE that he might develop a 3 in a modern context, but it's a lot less likely than someone who was ACTUALLY a primo shooter in a variety of contexts.

[One_and_Done]

Not a valid parallel at all.

Isn't it?

I didn't intend it to imply the 2 things were equally likely, rather than the logic of 'is it plausible this could have happened if events unfolded differently?' would allow for things like this too.

That said, Duncan shot 41% between 16 feet and the 3pt line for his career. For all we know West shot a similar number, we just don't have records of it. I wouldn't dismiss the notion of Tim developing a 3 as being so much more unlikely than West, since we have no numbers to back that up, and since West's overall career FG% was only 47%.

Of course the fact that West was known as quite probably the best long range shooter in basketball when he played and has a career FT% over .800 has of course no value as the most likely indicators of developing a good 3 point range v Duncan's career as a post player and FT% of 69% which make no difference to you in terms of "more unlikely."

FT% doesn't necessarily line up with 3pt%. As I said, I wasn't suggesting the 2 things were equally likely, I don't need to, but it wouldn't be shocking if West's FG% from 16 feet to 3pt range was similar to Duncan. Since we have no evidence, I don't think tsherkin is in a strong position to claim it's not a fair parallel.

[tsherkin]

FT% doesn't necessarily line up with 3pt%.

No, it doesn't, but it happens to line up well with his jumper being shakier and shakier the further from 13 feet he got, which IS relevant.

Since we have no evidence, I don't think tsherkin is in a strong position to claim it's not a fair parallel.

No, I mean, logically you're wrong. It isn't the same scenario at all. It's objectively clear that West was a better shooter than Duncan, and simple tracking will show that he shot more from range than Duncan did, and more effectively. His FG% was not 47% just because he was slashing to the basket. And he WAS a career 81.4% FT shooter who shot almost 88% at his peak and was known specifically for his shooting prowess, while Duncan was a 69.6% FT shooter on his career who touched West's career average once late in his career.

They're very, very different scenarios, regardless of your attempt to make this personal.

[One_and_Done]

FT% doesn't necessarily line up with 3pt%.

No, it doesn't, but it happens to line up well with his jumper being shakier and shakier the further from 13 feet he got, which IS relevant.

Since we have no evidence, I don't think tsherkin is in a strong position to claim it's not a fair parallel.

No, I mean, logically you're wrong. It isn't the same scenario at all. It's objectively clear that West was a better shooter than Duncan, and simple tracking will show that he shot more from range than Duncan did, and more effectively. His FG% was not 47% just because he was slashing to the basket. And he WAS a career 81.4% FT shooter who shot almost 88% at his peak and was known specifically for his shooting prowess, while Duncan was a 69.6% FT shooter on his career who touched West's career average once late in his career.

They're very, very different scenarios, regardless of your attempt to make this personal.

You are making assertions that you simply don't have evidence for.

It is possible you are right, and anecdotal evidence might support you, but it's also possible if we had the data it would turn out West was shooting over 50% from 10 to 16 feet, but was actually hitting only 41-42% from 16 feet to the 3pt line. That would completely change the discussion here, and it is entirely possible, but you confidently assert otherwise based on what is essentially a gut feeling.

My whole point here is that we have to rate guys off the skillset they actually proved they had, not a hypothetical one we imagined, because I can imagine alot of things too and that leads to all sorts of crazy stuff once you open that Pandora's box.

[penbeast0]

Isn't it?

I didn't intend it to imply the 2 things were equally likely, rather than the logic of 'is it plausible this could have happened if events unfolded differently?' would allow for things like this too.

That said, Duncan shot 41% between 16 feet and the 3pt line for his career. For all we know West shot a similar number, we just don't have records of it. I wouldn't dismiss the notion of Tim developing a 3 as being so much more unlikely than West, since we have no numbers to back that up, and since West's overall career FG% was only 47%.

Of course the fact that West was known as quite probably the best long range shooter in basketball when he played and has a career FT% over .800 has of course no value as the most likely indicators of developing a good 3 point range v Duncan's career as a post player and FT% of 69% which make no difference to you in terms of "more unlikely."

FT% doesn't necessarily line up with 3pt%. As I said, I wasn't suggesting the 2 things were equally likely, I don't need to, but it wouldn't be shocking if West's FG% from 16 feet to 3pt range was similar to Duncan. Since we have no evidence, I don't think tsherkin is in a strong position to claim it's not a fair parallel.

Well, let's look at the evidence we do have. The FT line hasn't changed, although it's easier to shoot FT's by a little bit today due to more consistent equipment. Of the top 10 3 point shots made leaders in the league last year, how many had a FT% over 80% (9 of them) and how many had a FT% under 70% (Malik Beasley). It's nothing close to a perfect indicator but it's at least a better one than just saying, well, we have no evidence.

[70sFan]

Yeah, we can't say who is the better shooter between Tim Duncan and Jerry West, but we can project Shaq in modern game because of Joel Embiid success.

Is this the moment when we can just all agree that feeding this troll is excessively unhealthy for the board discussion?

[tsherkin]

My whole point here is that we have to rate guys off the skillset they actually proved they had, not a hypothetical one we imagined, because I can imagine alot of things too and that leads to all sorts of crazy stuff once you open that Pandora's box.

As usual, this is a farcical approach at best. You are selective in how you choose to integrate data. And the idea that the sub-70% FT shooter who rarely shot well beyond the FT line in any kind of volume is somehow likely to be the better perimeter shooter or more likely to develop a 3 than the guy who's career average at the FT line is about the same as the other guy's career-best, AND was a noted shooter, and has a variety of video and anecdotal evidence supporting his range is inane, dude.

It just isn't a tenable position.

It's possible that your posited breakdown is correct. But that doesn't really change the PROBABILITY that West would be able to develop a 3pt shot relative to Duncan is quite different. Because even if the percentages were similar, the volumes and assisted proportion surely weren't, which does make a difference.

It isn't about guarantees, it's about likelihood, and the likelihood is that the dramatically-superior shooter would do a better job of potentially developing a 3, regardless. It isn't the same kind of scenario, aka a poor parallel.

[One_and_Done]

My whole point here is that we have to rate guys off the skillset they actually proved they had, not a hypothetical one we imagined, because I can imagine alot of things too and that leads to all sorts of crazy stuff once you open that Pandora's box.

As usual, this is a farcical approach at best. You are selective in how you choose to integrate data. And the idea that the sub-70% FT shooter who rarely shot well beyond the FT line in any kind of volume is somehow likely to be the better perimeter shooter or more likely to develop a 3 than the guy who's career average at the FT line is about the same as the other guy's career-best, AND was a noted shooter, and has a variety of video and anecdotal evidence supporting his range is inane, dude.

It just isn't a tenable position.

It's possible that your posited breakdown is correct. But that doesn't really change the PROBABILITY that West would be able to develop a 3pt shot relative to Duncan is quite different. Because even if the percentages were similar, the volumes and assisted proportion surely weren't, which does make a difference.

It isn't about guarantees, it's about likelihood, and the likelihood is that the dramatically-superior shooter would do a better job of potentially developing a 3, regardless. It isn't the same kind of scenario, aka a poor parallel.

What it's actually demonstrating is that modern players are punished, because we have more evidence to hold against them, whereas past players are always given favourable assumptions because of nostalgia.

A superior likelihood based on shooting form or FT% doesn't always correlate to whether you can develop a 3pt shot. Ask Demar and Marc Gasol. I look forward to when someone argues the old time player would be Demar or John Wall, but that never happens. The old star is always imagined to be able to learn the new skills.