Jerry West vs Kevin Durant

[Ol Roy]

Jerry West had excellent measurements. 6'4.5 feet tall with a 6'9 wingspan and 39'-inch vertical. He had a high motor on both ends of the floor and was very fast. His jumpshot was textbook. Basically, a lead guard who knew how to balance scoring and playmaking. Extremely high steal rate and pesky on the defensive end. Then there are the intangibles. He was a total professional and dedicated to practice (actually much like Durant in that respect). He rose to the occasion.

Severely downgrading him because he was forced to dribble in a more difficult & restrictive manner, or because the 3P line didn't exist, isn't an intelligent way to actually judge his ability to translate across eras. It's just required by those who have imposed a rigid, ideological method of analysis on themselves.

The idea that a handful of the top players from the 60s and 70s wouldn't be elite today is foolish. It supposes a magic time cutoff for which there is no evidence for. Again, another creation to fortify a dogmatic method of analysis.

[Top10alltime]

I can't prove that, cause it's impossible to do either way.

There are many evidences though, suggesting that West was extremely good screen navigator for his era, while we know that Durant wasn't even good at that in his own era. West is also considerably quicker, generally had better physical tools to defend screens and had better defensive instincts, so it should be worth something in such conversation.

Watch on YouTube

You have an interesting habit of reacting with surprise on opinions that shouldn't be controversial at all.

What is so strange in my post? West was quicker, had a frame better suited to move around screens and quicker hands to disrupt P&R plays. I know that discussing players across 50 years is often very tricky, but in this case I don't think any of these takes are controversial at all.

Do you have film evidence of this.... I haven't watched West in a while.

I also react with surprise because that's what I do. Deal with it

[One_and_Done]

Yeh, there’s a lot of things people just said that I disagree with, some of which others have already rebutted. The key issue is unresolvable though, which is that I’m obviously seeing something completely different from what other posters are on the tape.

Here are some of the things I just heard:
- “West is also considerably quicker [than KD]”
- “West generally had better physical tools [than KD]”
- “I don’t think there’s any question West would be a great player in any era”

If you think that, then I don’t know what to tell you. You are obviously watching a different player to me, because West’s athleticism and speed and physical tools would be below average for a guard today, never mind when compared to a nearly 7 foot tall superfreak like Durant. I don’t think West would be a great player today. He’d be in the league, but his combination of substandard dribbling for the guard position, average athleticism, and lack of proven 3pt shot, would make him more likely to be a bench player than an all-star.

Someone said that if we were to criticise West, we’d need to be just as willing to criticise Jordan for being a below average 3pt shooter. I agree, and I do criticise Jordan for that. His value drops as a result.

To reiterate my approach.

There are degrees of speculation. I think taking a player with their existing skillset, and imagining them in another context, is fine. We do that every day when we speculate on how a trade would work out. That is perfectly sensible. However, imagining the player with a skillset they never possessed is too speculative. No matter how refined the player, or how hard a worker, it’s entirely possible that the skill just doesn’t develop (like it didn’t for many refined players who worked hard).

Some people might say that is “unfair” to older players. I would say:

1) I am not concerned about fairness, just who is the best at basketball. It isn’t fair that Usain Bolt was born with a better physique than other runners, but it doesn’t change the fact he’s faster than them, just like being born short will often “unfairly” limit you as a basketball player.

2) I actually don’t think it’s unfair, because West never being asked to shoot 3s is only one side of the equation. He also benefitted from playing in a terrible era, in a way modern players did not. He benefitted compared to pre-WW2 players who were struck by polio, or players who were never allowed to play basketball because of racism. There’s something perversely unfair about the fact that using the “skill development” logic Demar would be automatically considered to be a 3pt shooter if he had just played in the 60s and 70s, because nobody ever assumes old legends would fail to develop a skill. The assumption is always that they would, which is clearly wrong because many players today have tried very hard to develop these skills and failed.

Today’s league is superior to older leagues, so success in the modern game should matter more. However, even if you didn’t buy that the 3pt shot has existed for most of NBA history, if we look at what skill sets translate to the majority of league history then that favours 3pt shooters too.

On the subject of what is “fair”, my approach is certainly the most principled; because it attempts to assess players objectively, based on what they could actually do. The alternative approaches are either completely arbitrary, or never applied consistently. The “let’s imagine what a player would be like if the had developed different skills” approach reduces player ratings to complete subjectivity. If I can imagine Shaq learning to shoot free throws if he’d been born later, or Sheed having a better attitude, or Walton being healthier because of better medical tech, then it becomes reality with this approach. That is not “fairer”, it just encourages people to apply their different biases based on utterly imaginary things. The reality is Shaq never developed a FT shot, and Walton was never healthy; that is what those guys should be judged on.

The other commonly seen alternative approach is the “era relativist” approach, which purports to judge guys based on how well they did in era. I don’t think this approach is better (or “fairer”) than mine, but it would at least be logically consistent… if anyone actually applied it consistently. But nobody does. It’s used as a justification to rank players they liked higher, but players they feel queasy about ranking highly don’t get the benefit of this supposed criteria. If you are an era relativist, then you should have Mikan as the GOAT, or very close. Nobody who claims to be an era relativist does though, which makes no sense because relative to the era he played in he was clearly much more dominant than Shaq or Lebron or Jokic ever were. The gap between him and the next best player was much wider, and the impact he could have on the league was much greater too. Similarly, if we were to make Bob Kurland eligible for the projects nobody would vote for him, even though he was Mikan’s rival and was regarded as similarly good.

[70sFan]

Yeh, there’s a lot of things people just said that I disagree with, some of which others have already rebutted. They key issue is unresolvable though, which is that I’m obviously seeing something completely different from what other posters here are on the tape.

Here are some of the things I just heard:
- “West is also considerably quicker [than KD]”
- “West generally had better physical tools [than KD]”
- “I don’t think there’s any question West would be a great player in any era”

If you think that, then I don’t know what to tell you. You are obviously watching a different player to me, because West’s athleticism and speed and physical tools would be below average for a guard today, never mind when compared to a nearly 7 foot tall superfreak like Durant.

I said that West had better physical tools to defend screens, not that he had better physical tools period. It may shock you, but Chris Paul had better tools to defend screens on-ball than LeBron.

I also don't understand what's so controversial about West being laterally quicker. He's smaller, had lighter feet and moved considerably quicker laterally than Durant, who was never great at that (no wonder why, he's 5 inches taller).

You say that West's athleticism would be below average for a today guard. Even if we assume it's true, it doesn't debunk my points because Durant is significantly less quick than average guard and he's not good at pick dodging relative to average guards.

At least try to read what I actually say in future.

[DraymondGold]

I actually didn't say that, but let's come back to it.

If we take a year like 1965, the average FG% was 426. That's lower than what KD shoots between 16 feet and the 3pt line. His career average is 457. from that distance, and some years it is much higher. He has 8 seasons where he hits from that range between 529 and 583.

Now, that is deadly enough, just when you compare it to the league average FG% of 429. I don't need to prove he'd hit from out there at a higher rate than rim shots to prove my point; just the fact that he's hitting above league average from out there is enough.

That said; it's very possible Durant would be hitting long range 2s at a higher % than shots within say a 5 foot radius. We can't be sure, because shooting splits for that era don't exist, but I would strongly suspect that to be the case. Firstly, you can bump up KDs % a fair bit because a) the quality of the average player guarding him is worse, and b) because he's going to take a more optimal shot diet to reflect the different environment.

The majority of shots at that time came relatively close to the basket, so I'm not sure the average shooting % within around 5 feet would be that much higher than the league average FG% of 426. It'd be higher, but higher than Durant's improved midrange %? I tend to doubt it. Of course, if you mean 'will be hit at a higher rate than uncontested lay-ups' then the answer is no, but with the paint clogged the way it was relatively few shots were uncontested back then, except on a fast break or steal, etc.

Wilt's career FG% is 540. It's very likely that KD is going to have alot of years where he's scoring more efficiently than that from long range twos. That is obviously going to break the game.

So, I come back to just show how off you are in your estimations.

It's true that we don't have the shooting data for the 1960s. What we do have is a shooting database created by trex:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1991991

He tracked shooting data for the available games from 1950-72 period. The sample contains over 5000 FGA, which is almost full season of data. This is how the splits look for the sample:

Spoiler:

Efficiency:

Overall: 44.7%
0-3: 63.2%
3-10: 38.4%
10-16: 40.6%
16-3P: 37.4%
3P: 29.6%

Volume:

0-3: 25.5%
3-10: 16.6%
10-16: 23.5%
16-3P: 32.5%
3P: 1.9%

If you compare these numbers to 2000/01 season, the data looks remarkably similar:

Spoiler:

Efficiency:

Overall: 44.3%
0-3: 61.9%
3-10: 35.9%
10-16: 38.5%
16-3P: 40.0%
3P: 35.4%

Volume:

0-3: 27.3%
3-10: 16.8%
10-16: 15.8%
16-3P: 23.2%
3P: 17.0%

You assumed that the majority of shots back then were taken inside the paint, but that's simply incorrect. Worse spacing meant more clogged paints and less rim attempts. Players were forced to create out of midrange in the halfcourt. What just happened is that players took significantly more long range midrange shots instead of three pointers that didn't exist.

The overall efficiency is basically identical to the league average from 1960-72 period. Rim shots were converted at above 60%. Of course, we can discuss the validity of the sample and some noise in the hand-tracked stats, but it's highly unlikely that you'd get 10% drop off with more accurate data.

So no, Durant shooting midranges at 50% rate wouldn't destroy the league. It's very likely that players like Oscar and West were quite close to that efficiency from outside considering their shooting profile and overall efficiency and yes, they were absolutely great but they didn't break the game.

Of course there are other problems with your era translation guessing. We actually know that worse quality of balls have a visible influence on players shooting efficiency. When the league introduced improved balls in 1969, the league average FT% improved by 4 percentage points. We can also mention stiffer rims, worse shoes, colder arenas etc. Durant's shot diet also wouldn't be nearly as optimized, as coaches didn't have the same knowledge about the value of efficiency back then.

You don't take anything of that into account, you just assume none of that would influence Durant's shooting percentages and you even push for better numbers.

Oh, cool data! Hadn’t seen that before. The difference in midrange vs 3 is I think fairly expected.

But the at-rim and 3-10 range is a bit different than what I would have expected. Despite so much less spacing in the 60s, the numbers are still surprisingly similar across eras. Pretty similar efficiency and volume in each range. I would have thought something would be different. Any idea why? Are the differences in pace causing more fast break at-rim attempts from the older era are getting used, which bumps the 60s rim efficiency and volume (where the at-rim volume and efficiency would otherwise be lower in the half court in the 60s due to the packed paint)?

I wonder if we might do some ballpark estimate for transition volume and efficiency for the 60s and 00s, and subtract that out, to get a comparison in the half court. Presumably fast break efficiency is reasonably similar across era. The shot quality is probably quite similar. So then it’s just about estimating what percentage of possessions were transition.

I wonder also how this affects how we interpret the value of rim protection in the 60s. If the rim/paint volume and efficiency are quite similar to 2001 (after correcting for transition, which we haven’t yet)… how would the argument go to explain why rim protection was so much more valuable in that era? I suppose the other interpretation is that paint defense was more valuable in the dead ball era and the 60s; presumably 01 team shot diet looks quite different from 2010-2025.

[One_and_Done]

As I've said many times, we shouldn't put much weight on a hobbyist purporting to have analysed data over an arbitrary, small, and unaudited sample. These are not real stats, even if they are well intentioned.

[70sFan]

As I've said many times, we shouldn't put much weight on a hobbyist purporting to have analysed data over an arbitrary, small, and unaudited sample. These are not real stats, even if they are well intentioned.

We should instead listen to your bunch of baseless nonsense statements, because they are yours. Thank you very much, I prefer these "not real stats" over nothing you provide.

[One_and_Done]

As I've said many times, we shouldn't put much weight on a hobbyist purporting to have analysed data over an arbitrary, small, and unaudited sample. These are not real stats, even if they are well intentioned.

We should instead listen to your bunch of baseless nonsense statements, because they are yours. Thank you very much, I prefer these "not real stats" over nothing you provide.

I'll take analysis and logic over a black box of unaudited numbers any day.

[70sFan]

As I've said many times, we shouldn't put much weight on a hobbyist purporting to have analysed data over an arbitrary, small, and unaudited sample. These are not real stats, even if they are well intentioned.

We should instead listen to your bunch of baseless nonsense statements, because they are yours. Thank you very much, I prefer these "not real stats" over nothing you provide.

I'll take analysis and logic over a black box of unaudited numbers any day.

You provided neither, you just imagined that players couldn't convert rim shots at solid efficiency back then because you baselessly assumed that they took the majority of shots in the paint, proving you haven't watched a single game from that era.

Your posts consist no analysis, only wishful thinking.

[Ol Roy]

If you think that, then I don’t know what to tell you. You are obviously watching a different player to me, because West’s athleticism and speed and physical tools would be below average for a guard today, never mind when compared to a nearly 7 foot tall superfreak like Durant. I don’t think West would be a great player today. He’d be in the league, but his combination of substandard dribbling for the guard position, average athleticism, and lack of proven 3pt shot, would make him more likely to be a bench player than an all-star.

How does a player (Jerry West) with a "lack of a proven 3PT shot" work practically in a basketball game today?

Does that mean he isn't allowed to shoot threes? That isn't a realistic scenario (no coach or GM would go along with it), and an unrealistic scenario doesn't have much value. Does it mean he would shoot them poorly? There isn't any evidence to indicate that, in fact the evidence is quite the contrary.

Since you are engaging in a hypothetical in which Jerry West is playing now, the door to speculation has been opened, and this has to be fleshed out.

[One_and_Done]

If you think that, then I don’t know what to tell you. You are obviously watching a different player to me, because West’s athleticism and speed and physical tools would be below average for a guard today, never mind when compared to a nearly 7 foot tall superfreak like Durant. I don’t think West would be a great player today. He’d be in the league, but his combination of substandard dribbling for the guard position, average athleticism, and lack of proven 3pt shot, would make him more likely to be a bench player than an all-star.

How does a player (Jerry West) with a "lack of a proven 3PT shot" work practically in a basketball game today?

Does that mean he isn't allowed to shoot threes? That isn't a realistic scenario (no coach or GM would go along with it), and an unrealistic scenario doesn't have much value. Does it mean he would shoot them poorly? There isn't any evidence to indicate that, in fact the evidence is quite the contrary.

Since you are engaging in a hypothetical in which Jerry West is playing now, the door to speculation has been opened, and this has to be fleshed out.

Since he never proved he could hit 3s reliably, the assumption has to be he couldn't, just like we can't grant other players skill upgrades based on parallel reality 'what ifs'. That alone doesn't mean he won't be in the league, plenty of guards with no 3pt shot made fine bench players, e.g. Shaun Livjngston.

Whether he'd be a starter despite having no 3pt shot would depend on circumstances. Maybe he'd get starts like Demar or Andre Miller, but whether that would be good for his team is another matter. The lack of modern dribbling, and average athleticism, certainly wouldn’t help.

[Ol Roy]

Since he never proved he could hit 3s reliably, the assumption has to be he couldn't, just like we can't grant other players skill upgrades based on parallel reality 'what ifs'. That alone doesn't mean he won't be in the league, plenty of guards with no 3pt shot made fine bench players, e.g. Shaun Livjngston.

Whether he'd be a starter despite having no 3pt shot would depend on circumstances. Maybe he'd get starts like Demar or Andre Miller, but whether that would be good for his team is another matter. The lack of modern dribbling, and average athleticism, certainly wouldn’t help.

This doesn't address the questions I posed.

[One_and_Done]

Since he never proved he could hit 3s reliably, the assumption has to be he couldn't, just like we can't grant other players skill upgrades based on parallel reality 'what ifs'. That alone doesn't mean he won't be in the league, plenty of guards with no 3pt shot made fine bench players, e.g. Shaun Livingston.

Whether he'd be a starter despite having no 3pt shot would depend on circumstances. Maybe he'd get starts like Demar or Andre Miller, but whether that would be good for his team is another matter. The lack of modern dribbling, and average athleticism, certainly wouldn’t help.

This doesn't address the questions I posed.

I answered it perfectly, you just don't like the answer.

I'm sure West would take 3s, especially heaves at the end of the half, etc, but since there's no evidence he can make them at a reliable rate you treat.him like those guys I named, who also couldn't reliably hit 3s.

Shaun Livingston had a 14 year, 833 game career as a legit NBA guard. He only attempted 73 threes, and hit 13 of them. The guy only retired in 2019, and coaches didn't insist he had to shoot them. It just meant he was a bench guard. Like West, he also had a great midrange shot, the 3pter just never came around.

[Ol Roy]

Since he never proved he could hit 3s reliably, the assumption has to be he couldn't, just like we can't grant other players skill upgrades based on parallel reality 'what ifs'. That alone doesn't mean he won't be in the league, plenty of guards with no 3pt shot made fine bench players, e.g. Shaun Livingston.

Whether he'd be a starter despite having no 3pt shot would depend on circumstances. Maybe he'd get starts like Demar or Andre Miller, but whether that would be good for his team is another matter. The lack of modern dribbling, and average athleticism, certainly wouldn’t help.

This doesn't address the questions I posed.

I answered it perfectly, you just don't like the answer.

I'm sure West would take 3s, especially heaves at the end of the half, etc, but since there's no evidence he can make them at a reliable rate you treat.him like those guys I named, who also couldn't reliably hit 3s.

Shaun Livingston had a 14 year, 833 game career as a legit NBA guard. He only attempted 73 threes, and hit 13 of them. The guy only retired in 2019, and coaches didn't insist he had to shoot them. It just meant he was a bench guard. Like West, he also had a great midrange shot, the 3pter just never came around.

No, my questions were not answered. You said, "the assumption has to be he couldn't," which doesn't address whether he is given a theoretical handicap or whether he is simply bad.

(And no, the assumption does not HAVE to be that he couldn't, whatever "couldn't" means. You can make that assumption. You can make the opposite assumption. Or you can be agnostic.)

But in this latest response, you seem to be indicating that "couldn't" means he is allowed to shoot threes and would be bad at them.

The assumption that Jerry West would be a bad 3P shooter is without foundation. Your methodology is inconsistent, refusing to give potential credit but eager to give potential demerit. Either you are willing to address potential, or you aren't, but hypocrisy is arguing in bad faith.

This line of discussion also needs to be applied to dribbling. Would Jerry West be forced to handle the ball under the old rules while playing today, or are we forced to presume that he would suck with more freedom?

[One_and_Done]

This doesn't address the questions I posed.

I answered it perfectly, you just don't like the answer.

I'm sure West would take 3s, especially heaves at the end of the half, etc, but since there's no evidence he can make them at a reliable rate you treat.him like those guys I named, who also couldn't reliably hit 3s.

Shaun Livingston had a 14 year, 833 game career as a legit NBA guard. He only attempted 73 threes, and hit 13 of them. The guy only retired in 2019, and coaches didn't insist he had to shoot them. It just meant he was a bench guard. Like West, he also had a great midrange shot, the 3pter just never came around.

No, my questions were not answered. You said, "the assumption has to be he couldn't," which doesn't address whether he is given a theoretical handicap or whether he is simply bad.

(And no, the assumption does not HAVE to be that he couldn't, whatever "couldn't" means. You can make that assumption. You can make the opposite assumption. Or you can be agnostic.)

But in this latest response, you seem to be indicating that "couldn't" means he is allowed to shoot threes and would be bad at them.

The assumption that Jerry West would be a bad 3P shooter is without foundation. Your methodology is inconsistent, refusing to give potential credit but eager to give potential demerit. Either you are willing to address potential, or you aren't, but hypocrisy is arguing in bad faith.

This line of discussion also needs to be applied to dribbling. Would Jerry West be forced to handle the ball under the old rules while playing today, or are we forced to presume that he would suck with more freedom?

He's not being given any handicap, theoretical or otherwise. He's being granted the skillset he demonstrated in his actual career. I fail to see any inconsistency in my approach. West gets the dribbling and shooting skills he actually had, which obviously is very bad for him. It's not that the rules are forcing him not to dribble well today, it's that the dribble he actually had would be a huge handicap today because he never developed the more advanced modern handle that today's guards tend to have.

You seem to be asking 'what if you dumped your criteria, and used mine instead', but I don't see why I'd do that.

[Ol Roy]

He's not being given any handicap, theoretical or otherwise. He's being granted the skillset he demonstrated in his actual career. I fail to see any inconsistency in my approach. West gets the dribbling and shooting skills he actually had, which obviously is very bad for him. It's not that the rules are forcing him not to dribble well today, it's that the dribble he actually had would be a huge handicap today because he never developed the more advanced modern handle that today's guards tend to have.

Actually, it is specifically the rules that forced West to dribble the way he did. When I learned basketball during recess, which was way beyond the playing days of West, it took care to conform to the rules of dribbling and traveling. It's more natural to place your hand on the ball where it is most comfortable. It's more natural to have a higher step-to-dribble ratio. The reason the NBA has moved away from those constrictions is because they are an impediment to offense. Between-the-legs showmanship is a different matter, and not synonymous with functional on-court movement.

Anyway, you are still trying to have it both ways.

Either West has to play the way he did in his time OR he is allowed to play differently.

If it's the former, then the hypothetical is nonsensical and pointless, because no team would entertain the notion of playing a handicapped (meaning by rule of the exercise, not rule of the NBA) player.

If it's the latter, then we can entertain a plausible hypothetical, but then some assumption about his ability to adapt has to be made.

In terms of shooting, you conceded that West would not be handicapped by rule, and that he would be allowed to shoot threes today, and that he would do so poorly. At that point, you left the realm of "demonstrated skillset" and inserted your own opinion.

As I pointed out, when you do offer an assumption, you only allow it to be done in the negative. That's an inconsistent application. That's fine if the negative assumption is presented as your opinion. It's not fine if the negative assumption is presented as an objective fact and necessary construct.

I realize that the point is to shield your disdain for past players behind your methodology. The problem is that your methodology is not internally consistent, or at least not in the way you apply it.

[One_and_Done]

He's not being given any handicap, theoretical or otherwise. He's being granted the skillset he demonstrated in his actual career. I fail to see any inconsistency in my approach. West gets the dribbling and shooting skills he actually had, which obviously is very bad for him. It's not that the rules are forcing him not to dribble well today, it's that the dribble he actually had would be a huge handicap today because he never developed the more advanced modern handle that today's guards tend to have.

Actually, it is specifically the rules that forced West to dribble the way he did. When I learned basketball during recess, which was way beyond the playing days of West, it took care to conform to the rules of dribbling and traveling. It's more natural to place your hand on the ball where it is most comfortable. It's more natural to have a higher step-to-dribble ratio. The reason the NBA has moved away from those constrictions is because they are an impediment to offense. Between-the-legs showmanship is a different matter, and not synonymous with functional on-court movement.

Anyway, you are still trying to have it both ways.

Either West has to play the way he did in his time OR he is allowed to play differently.

If it's the former, then the hypothetical is nonsensical and pointless, because no team would entertain the notion of playing a handicapped (meaning by rule of the exercise, not rule of the NBA) player.

If it's the latter, then we can entertain a plausible hypothetical, but then some assumption about his ability to adapt has to be made.

In terms of shooting, you conceded that West would not be handicapped by rule, and that he would be allowed to shoot threes today, and that he would do so poorly. At that point, you left the realm of "demonstrated skillset" and inserted your own opinion.

As I pointed out, when you do offer an assumption, you only allow it to be done in the negative. That's an inconsistent application. That's fine if the negative assumption is presented as your opinion. It's not fine if the negative assumption is presented as an objective fact and necessary construct.

I realize that the point is to shield your disdain for past players behind your methodology. The problem is that your methodology is not internally consistent, or at least not in the way you apply it.

You cite the rules, as though everyone isn't aware that the rules at the time were why West wasn't shooting 3s, or why his dribble wasn't as advanced. We all know this. The why doesn't matter.

There is no 'inconsistency' in my approach of granting players only the abilities they actually demonstrated. You want to grant that if he played today, he'd try to play differently. No doubt he would, and I've explained many times I am fine with a players skillset being deployed in a way that is optimal for that environment. So if Russell played today for instance, he'd be deployed as more of a rim roller, and not be allowed to take so many bad shots. That's fine, because there's plenty of evidence Russell had the skillset to roll to the rim. On the other hand, there isn't evidence West could shoot 3s consistently, or deploy the advanced modern handle that today's star guards tend to have.

It isn't easy to dribble like Kyrie, or even guys like Maxey. We can't just grant West would develop such an ability, many modern players have tried and failed to do so. Just look at rookie Egor Dermin. The guy has had the benefit of playing modern ball, with far more advanced training, and he can't dribble effectively enough. He's getting picked up full court and completely taken out of games in fact.

It is not 'my opinion' West did not demonstrate reliable 3pt shooting. His career 3pt% is zero. You can argue that's unfair because of the era, I honestly don't really care if it is. It's not fair Wilt was over 7 feet tall either. It's irrelevant. However by assuming West could reliably hit 3s it's actually you who is engaging in speculation, not me.

[Ol Roy]

On the other hand, there isn't evidence West could shoot 3s consistently

There isn't evidence that West would shoot 3s inconsistently, yet you made that assumption.

It is not 'my opinion' West did not demonstrate reliable 3pt shooting. His career 3pt% is zero.

No, it's your opinion that the implication of West playing before the 3P line is that he would shoot them poorly today. Unfounded.

However by assuming West could reliably hit 3s it's actually you who is engaging in speculation, not me.

You are engaging in speculation by assuming West would unreliably hit 3s.

I have no problem engaging in speculation. In fact, engaging in speculation is the entire purpose of this subforum.

The problem, as I have to repeat endlessly, is that you lecture others to not speculate, only to turn around and engage in your own speculation!

[One_and_Done]

On the other hand, there isn't evidence West could shoot 3s consistently

There isn't evidence that West would shoot 3s inconsistently, yet you made that assumption.

It is not 'my opinion' West did not demonstrate reliable 3pt shooting. His career 3pt% is zero.

No, it's your opinion that the implication of West playing before the 3P line is that he would shoot them poorly today. Unfounded.

However by assuming West could reliably hit 3s it's actually you who is engaging in speculation, not me.

You are engaging in speculation by assuming West would unreliably hit 3s.

I have no problem engaging in speculation. In fact, engaging in speculation is the entire purpose of this subforum.

The problem, as I have to repeat endlessly, is that you lecture others to not speculate, only to turn around and engage in your own speculation!

When we say Reggie Miller was a great shooter, we're not doing it because of speculation or 'an assumption'. We're saying that because he empirically proved that during his career, with his career 395 3pt%. It's what actually happened. What actually happened in West's career was his 3pt % was zero. I'm not 'assuming' anything about him not having a reliable 3pt shot, I'm citing the actual reality of what happened in his career. This shouldn't require so much explanation, as it's pretty straightforward.

[Ol Roy]

What actually happened in West's career was his 3pt % was zero. I'm not 'assuming' anything about him not having a reliable 3pt shot, I'm citing the actual reality of what happened in his career. This shouldn't require so much explanation, as it's pretty straightforward.

Except...

I'm sure West would take 3s, especially heaves at the end of the half, etc, but since there's no evidence he can make them at a reliable rate you treat.him like those guys I named, who also couldn't reliably hit 3s.