Kevin Durant: I Value My Shots A Little More Now

[RealGM Wiretap]

Kevin Durant is averaging 27.0 points on just 16.9 shots per game while also averaging career bests in rebounds (8.4), steals (1.48) and blocks (1.76).

"He's even better than he was billed to us," said Warriors assistant coach Bruce Fraser, Durant's frequent workout partner. "He can go out and get 50 easy. He's that good. And in our environment, no one would get upset.

"You can see our guys trying to get KD the ball more at times. But he's chosen to blend in, learn and try to do it the right way."

Said Steve Kerr: "I knew he was good. He's kicked our ass for years. I just felt our style of play would suit him. He was brilliant in OKC, but the way they play, there's a lot more isos. It was sort of take turns: Russell (Westbrook) would go, then KD would go. I think KD understands he's going to have the ball in his hands less [with Golden State], but he'll be in more advantageous positions to score. I think he's really embracing the style. I think he likes making plays for other guys, and vice versa. It's a fun way to play."

Said Kerr: "He's playing more 4 here than he played in OKC, so we're asking him to anchor the paint at times. It doesn't come naturally to him. He's really more of a guard than he is a big. But he's adapting, and he's getting better. When he's locked in, he's an all-league defender. But it's an awful lot to ask a guy to score 27, 28 a game and be locked in for 48 minutes."

"I look at it like, if I shoot 15-16 shots a night, 13 of 'em gotta be solid, and the rest can be some pull-up 3s or fadeaways that I kind of work on that I wouldn't mind if I make or miss those," Durant said. "I look at those other shots like heat checks -- just trying stuff.

"But I know what our offense is. So when I get those shots that I get, I know that I gotta be patient with 'em. And I know I also gotta be ... they're precious. I think, my shots now, I value them a little more than I did before 'cause I might not shoot 30 shots whenever I want. And that's not a bad thing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. That's just how we play here ... especially when you got two other guys on the perimeter that can go off and score 30 any night as well.

"It's a different situation. When I won MVP in 2014, I was playing differently. I had the ball in my hands a lot more. I was playing the point forward role, more like how LeBron [James] plays in Cleveland. And it was fun, but it was a lot. I had to do a lot out there on the floor. And I got rewarded for that by winning MVP, but it taught me a lot about the game. That was a huge year for me.

"I felt like I made Thabo Sefolosha better. I made Kendrick Perkins better. I made Serge Ibaka better. And it wasn't because I was just scoring. I think my leadership ... we were down. Russell was out most of the year, so I had to step into a different role. I felt like that was one of the better years for me all around. This year, I just feel like I'm trying to fit in but also still be myself. I know that I can't just run and go grab the ball and clear everybody out. Coach wants me to sometimes, but it's not going to be like that most of the time."

Via Marc Stein/ESPN

[IggieCC]

"It's a different situation. When I won MVP in 2014, I was playing differently. I had the ball in my hands a lot more. I was playing the point forward role, more like how LeBron [James] plays in Cleveland. And it was fun, but it was a lot. I had to do a lot out there on the floor. And I got rewarded for that by winning MVP, but it taught me a lot about the game. That was a huge year for me.

I don't wanna do a lot out there on the floor that's too much for me. I enjoy playing with other super stars on a super team it's super fun.

Peace out,

KD

[inquisitive]

what has his shooting % been like in the 4th quarter vs. the other 3 quarters?

[Dino353]

It is simply not even fair. Specially if Steph gets re-signed, but just with a core of Durant, Klay, and Green the Warriors are still the best team in the West and arguably the whole league. KD does look weird passing the ball around lol, used to just seeing him catch the ball at the top of the key and get buckets.

[inquisitive]

It is simply not even fair. Specially if Steph gets re-signed, but just with a core of Durant, Klay, and Green the Warriors are still the best team in the West and arguably the whole league. KD does look weird passing the ball around lol, used to just seeing him catch the ball at the top of the key and get buckets.

with KD and Steph maxed...they will lose iggy and Livingston next year ...those guys are gonna get seriously paid elsewhere for their last big contract . this year is their best chance to win it all with those 2 bench guys

[SFrush]

It is simply not even fair. Specially if Steph gets re-signed, but just with a core of Durant, Klay, and Green the Warriors are still the best team in the West and arguably the whole league. KD does look weird passing the ball around lol, used to just seeing him catch the ball at the top of the key and get buckets.

with KD and Steph maxed...they will lose iggy and Livingston next year ...those guys are gonna get seriously paid elsewhere for their last big contract . this year is their best chance to win it all with those 2 bench guys

That is certainly not a given. If the warriors sign KD to a deal with the non bird rights. They get to keep their bird rights on Iggy& Livingston and exceed the cap to re-sign them.

The luxury tax is a non issue. Lacob will pay that without a sweat.

[Patches Perry]

Translation:
"I'm really, really good when I take on less responsibility. Low hanging fruit tastes good enough for me"

[wizkid27]

It is simply not even fair. Specially if Steph gets re-signed, but just with a core of Durant, Klay, and Green the Warriors are still the best team in the West and arguably the whole league. KD does look weird passing the ball around lol, used to just seeing him catch the ball at the top of the key and get buckets.

with KD and Steph maxed...they will lose iggy and Livingston next year ...those guys are gonna get seriously paid elsewhere for their last big contract . this year is their best chance to win it all with those 2 bench guys

That is certainly not a given. If the warriors sign KD to a deal with the non bird rights. They get to keep their bird rights on Iggy& Livingston and exceed the cap to re-sign them.

The luxury tax is a non issue. Lacob will pay that without a sweat.

In order to resign Durant, they would have to be enough under the cap to fit his entire salary INCLUDING Livingston and iguodala's cap holds. I haven't looked at the numbers, but your description of them being able to sign Durant and then use bird rights on the other 2 seems to ignore cap holds

[Pedro]

Translation:
"I'm really, really good when I take on less responsibility. Low hanging fruit tastes good enough for me"

Comments like this are so ridiculous. It essentially says the best players shouldnt go to better teams but thevworse teams so they have to do more which puts them in the position to get hurt more often or just lose and waste years of their career. Try to think and make your own opinion before writing or saying such garbage.

[Patches Perry]

Translation:
"I'm really, really good when I take on less responsibility. Low hanging fruit tastes good enough for me"

Comments like this are so ridiculous. It essentially says the best players shouldnt go to better teams but thevworse teams so they have to do more which puts them in the position to get hurt more often or just lose and waste years of their career. Try to think and make your own opinion before writing or saying such garbage.

Do you not handle disagreement well?

You misunderstood what I said. I never said players shouldn't do what Durant did. Players can do what they want. I'm all about player empowerment and all that jazz. Durant had every right.

My point is that if he does do it, you have to accept the facts and conclusions that follow logically. You seem to accept that the path he took is of much less resistance (since you argued that it's smarter to do so), and so it's not exactly uncommon for the path of least resistance to yield less respect. If I buy someone a nice dinner, they'll respect me sure, but if I cook them the exact same dinner, the respect is higher because it wasn't as easy as paying someone else to do it. Respect is earned by the means to which the product is achieved. If the product is achieved cheaply, respect will be less.

[SFrush]

with KD and Steph maxed...they will lose iggy and Livingston next year ...those guys are gonna get seriously paid elsewhere for their last big contract . this year is their best chance to win it all with those 2 bench guys

That is certainly not a given. If the warriors sign KD to a deal with the non bird rights. They get to keep their bird rights on Iggy& Livingston and exceed the cap to re-sign them.

The luxury tax is a non issue. Lacob will pay that without a sweat.

In order to resign Durant, they would have to be enough under the cap to fit his entire salary INCLUDING Livingston and iguodala's cap holds. I haven't looked at the numbers, but your description of them being able to sign Durant and then use bird rights on the other 2 seems to ignore cap holds

Yeah you should do that.

[Pedro]

Translation:
"I'm really, really good when I take on less responsibility. Low hanging fruit tastes good enough for me"

Comments like this are so ridiculous. It essentially says the best players shouldnt go to better teams but thevworse teams so they have to do more which puts them in the position to get hurt more often or just lose and waste years of their career. Try to think and make your own opinion before writing or saying such garbage.

Do you not handle disagreement well?

You misunderstood what I said. I never said players shouldn't do what Durant did. Players can do what they want. I'm all about player empowerment and all that jazz. Durant had every right.

My point is that if he does do it, you have to accept the facts and conclusions that follow logically. You seem to accept that the path he took is of much less resistance (since you argued that it's smarter to do so), and so it's not exactly uncommon for the path of least resistance to yield less respect. If I buy someone a nice dinner, they'll respect me sure, but if I cook them the exact same dinner, the respect is higher because it wasn't as easy as paying someone else to do it. Respect is earned by the means to which the product is achieved. If the product is achieved cheaply, respect will be less.

Well, Im glad you responded logically and respectfully, proving you're not the average fool that your comment made me believe due to the comment being so short. Now this is a discussion

I understand method of reasoning but the whole point of free agency is to find the situation that bests suits your skill set to achieve maximum success. It makes no sense to me that people, at any level, mock Golden State for what have essentially been brilliant decisions to build a team with incredible talent, which is the whole point of pro sports. They didnt do what the Isaiah Thomas' Knicks, Brooklyn Nets or Howard-led Lakers did which was attempting to buy their way into success. They drafted multiple great players and signed them to deals & signed excellent veterans to affordable contracts that left financial flexibility to sign Durant outright. That's all nothing but great planning and execution. To mock that, or any players decision to join that environment, is asinine.

With Golden States success, you now see every team emulating it in some way, with few exceptions. That is the argument against those who say "super teams" are bad for the league while ignoring the true reason behind them, which is poor management elsewhere. If there were better decisions made by other GMs and front offices then there wouldn't be so many struggling teams. This "movement", if you wish to call it as such, is creating a much overdue desire for front office to make a better effort and team building.

[Patches Perry]

Comments like this are so ridiculous. It essentially says the best players shouldnt go to better teams but thevworse teams so they have to do more which puts them in the position to get hurt more often or just lose and waste years of their career. Try to think and make your own opinion before writing or saying such garbage.

Do you not handle disagreement well?

You misunderstood what I said. I never said players shouldn't do what Durant did. Players can do what they want. I'm all about player empowerment and all that jazz. Durant had every right.

My point is that if he does do it, you have to accept the facts and conclusions that follow logically. You seem to accept that the path he took is of much less resistance (since you argued that it's smarter to do so), and so it's not exactly uncommon for the path of least resistance to yield less respect. If I buy someone a nice dinner, they'll respect me sure, but if I cook them the exact same dinner, the respect is higher because it wasn't as easy as paying someone else to do it. Respect is earned by the means to which the product is achieved. If the product is achieved cheaply, respect will be less.

Well, Im glad you responded logically and respectfully, proving you're not the average fool that your comment made me believe due to the comment being so short. Now this is a discussion

I understand method of reasoning but the whole point of free agency is to find the situation that bests suits your skill set to achieve maximum success. It makes no sense to me that people, at any level, mock Golden State for what have essentially been brilliant decisions to build a team with incredible talent, which is the whole point of pro sports. They didnt do what the Isaiah Thomas' Knicks, Brooklyn Nets or Howard-led Lakers did which was attempting to buy their way into success. They drafted multiple great players and signed them to deals & signed excellent veterans to affordable contracts that left financial flexibility to sign Durant outright. That's all nothing but great planning and execution. To mock that, or any players decision to join that environment, is asinine.

With Golden States success, you now see every team emulating it in some way, with few exceptions. That is the argument against those who say "super teams" are bad for the league while ignoring the true reason behind them, which is poor management elsewhere. If there were better decisions made by other GMs and front offices then there wouldn't be so many struggling teams. This "movement", if you wish to call it as such, is creating a much overdue desire for front office to make a better effort and team building.

I don't disagree with anything you said. Golden State has done a marvelous job over the past 5 years. Every move a stroke of genius seemingly (with some luck involved in Curry's contract). They are worthy of all my hate.

I think it's possible to hold it against Durant as a competitor for signing with Golden State, while not holding it against Golden State as a franchise for signing Durant. This is because it is a team's job to put the best team on the court. It is a players job to compete. As we see, GS has put a monster of a team on the court. Great job on their part. Still, Durant leaving reflects poorly on him as a competitor. He is still a great, great player obviously and a pretty solid human being. No hate in that regard. I just wish OKC hadn't played against Golden State 5 weeks prior to him signing with them. It's not so much that Durant signed elsewhere or even that the team he signed with was better (although that stings a bit too), it's that he signed with the better team that he couldn't beat a very short time prior. He conceded that he couldn't beat them by signing with them. I don't think he can ever live that down in my mind. Our competitive instincts should dictate that we say run it back! and not let me join you guys after losing a 7 game series to a team by the slimmest of margins. That's just so anti-competitive on every level. And for all this, he absolutely has the right to do it, but fans also have the right to form their perception of him based on the decision. Great player, great person, not a leader, questionable competitor. That's my view of KD.

[Pedro]

Do you not handle disagreement well?

You misunderstood what I said. I never said players shouldn't do what Durant did. Players can do what they want. I'm all about player empowerment and all that jazz. Durant had every right.

My point is that if he does do it, you have to accept the facts and conclusions that follow logically. You seem to accept that the path he took is of much less resistance (since you argued that it's smarter to do so), and so it's not exactly uncommon for the path of least resistance to yield less respect. If I buy someone a nice dinner, they'll respect me sure, but if I cook them the exact same dinner, the respect is higher because it wasn't as easy as paying someone else to do it. Respect is earned by the means to which the product is achieved. If the product is achieved cheaply, respect will be less.

Well, Im glad you responded logically and respectfully, proving you're not the average fool that your comment made me believe due to the comment being so short. Now this is a discussion

I understand method of reasoning but the whole point of free agency is to find the situation that bests suits your skill set to achieve maximum success. It makes no sense to me that people, at any level, mock Golden State for what have essentially been brilliant decisions to build a team with incredible talent, which is the whole point of pro sports. They didnt do what the Isaiah Thomas' Knicks, Brooklyn Nets or Howard-led Lakers did which was attempting to buy their way into success. They drafted multiple great players and signed them to deals & signed excellent veterans to affordable contracts that left financial flexibility to sign Durant outright. That's all nothing but great planning and execution. To mock that, or any players decision to join that environment, is asinine.

With Golden States success, you now see every team emulating it in some way, with few exceptions. That is the argument against those who say "super teams" are bad for the league while ignoring the true reason behind them, which is poor management elsewhere. If there were better decisions made by other GMs and front offices then there wouldn't be so many struggling teams. This "movement", if you wish to call it as such, is creating a much overdue desire for front office to make a better effort and team building.

I don't disagree with anything you said. Golden State has done a marvelous job over the past 5 years. Every move a stroke of genius seemingly (with some luck involved in Curry's contract). They are worthy of all my hate.

I think it's possible to hold it against Durant as a competitor for signing with Golden State, while not holding it against Golden State as a franchise for signing Durant. This is because it is a team's job to put the best team on the court. It is a players job to compete. As we see, GS has put a monster of a team on the court. Great job on their part. Still, Durant leaving reflects poorly on him as a competitor. He is still a great, great player obviously and a pretty solid human being. No hate in that regard. I just wish OKC hadn't played against Golden State 5 weeks prior to him signing with them. It's not so much that Durant signed elsewhere or even that the team he signed with was better (although that stings a bit too), it's that he signed with the better team that he couldn't beat a very short time prior. He conceded that he couldn't beat them by signing with them. I don't think he can ever live that down in my mind. Our competitive instincts should dictate that we say run it back! and not let me join you guys after losing a 7 game series to a team by the slimmest of margins. That's just so anti-competitive on every level. And for all this, he absolutely has the right to do it, but fans also have the right to form their perception of him based on the decision. Great player, great person, not a leader, questionable competitor. That's my view of KD.

Its not Durants fault that many teams have front offices that do a poor job at making their teams competitive which makes The Warriors seem unfairly better. That team still has flaws and are beatable from a basketball fundamental perspective. Again, such a move forces others teams to make a better effort to build competitive teams. As for him leaving OKC, it was inevitable so in my eyes it reflected poorly that he didnt leave sooner. OKC did a poor job at improving the talent around him and one of the worse decisions in that regard was letting Harden go over Westbrook. While i admit that no one foresaw just how much better Harden would become, it was obvious to me for years that Westbrook and Durant do not and never have melded well on the court. This is why they failed in their lone Finals appearance and why they never reached the Finals again. Westbrook chokes in close moments and cannot close out close games. This is fact and proven over his entire career and not just the last season or two like most people chose to look at.

So be careful not to get caught up in the short-sighted thinking that all of the media and most analysts have fallen into nowadays. History proves my points. Harden may get severely disengaged defensive when his teams arent engaged either, but he wins games constantly and is easier to build around his deficiencies. Westbrook MUST be option A and surrounded by shooters, which OKC has yet to do and should've done for the last 5 years even with Durant. So with all that said, OKC proved to Durant over a 7 year span that they cannot build a legitimately contending team by addressing team weaknesses. Why risk wasting more years of his career as Garnett did in Minnesota? OKC trading for Oladipo, whom I like, makes no sense besides Westbrook, so he should be trade bait because their games are very similar. If OKC doesn't surround Westbrook with shooters and reliable players to make game winning plays then do not be surprised if/when he leaves within a few years.

[Patches Perry]

Well, Im glad you responded logically and respectfully, proving you're not the average fool that your comment made me believe due to the comment being so short. Now this is a discussion

I understand method of reasoning but the whole point of free agency is to find the situation that bests suits your skill set to achieve maximum success. It makes no sense to me that people, at any level, mock Golden State for what have essentially been brilliant decisions to build a team with incredible talent, which is the whole point of pro sports. They didnt do what the Isaiah Thomas' Knicks, Brooklyn Nets or Howard-led Lakers did which was attempting to buy their way into success. They drafted multiple great players and signed them to deals & signed excellent veterans to affordable contracts that left financial flexibility to sign Durant outright. That's all nothing but great planning and execution. To mock that, or any players decision to join that environment, is asinine.

With Golden States success, you now see every team emulating it in some way, with few exceptions. That is the argument against those who say "super teams" are bad for the league while ignoring the true reason behind them, which is poor management elsewhere. If there were better decisions made by other GMs and front offices then there wouldn't be so many struggling teams. This "movement", if you wish to call it as such, is creating a much overdue desire for front office to make a better effort and team building.

I don't disagree with anything you said. Golden State has done a marvelous job over the past 5 years. Every move a stroke of genius seemingly (with some luck involved in Curry's contract). They are worthy of all my hate.

I think it's possible to hold it against Durant as a competitor for signing with Golden State, while not holding it against Golden State as a franchise for signing Durant. This is because it is a team's job to put the best team on the court. It is a players job to compete. As we see, GS has put a monster of a team on the court. Great job on their part. Still, Durant leaving reflects poorly on him as a competitor. He is still a great, great player obviously and a pretty solid human being. No hate in that regard. I just wish OKC hadn't played against Golden State 5 weeks prior to him signing with them. It's not so much that Durant signed elsewhere or even that the team he signed with was better (although that stings a bit too), it's that he signed with the better team that he couldn't beat a very short time prior. He conceded that he couldn't beat them by signing with them. I don't think he can ever live that down in my mind. Our competitive instincts should dictate that we say run it back! and not let me join you guys after losing a 7 game series to a team by the slimmest of margins. That's just so anti-competitive on every level. And for all this, he absolutely has the right to do it, but fans also have the right to form their perception of him based on the decision. Great player, great person, not a leader, questionable competitor. That's my view of KD.

Its not Durants fault that many teams have front offices that do a poor job at making their teams competitive which makes The Warriors seem unfairly better. That team still has flaws and are beatable from a basketball fundamental perspective. Again, such a move forces others teams to make a better effort to build competitive teams. As for him leaving OKC, it was inevitable so in my eyes it reflected poorly that he didnt leave sooner. OKC did a poor job at improving the talent around him and one of the worse decisions in that regard was letting Harden go over Westbrook. While i admit that no one foresaw just how much better Harden would become, it was obvious to me for years that Westbrook and Durant do not and never have melded well on the court. This is why they failed in their lone Finals appearance and why they never reached the Finals again. Westbrook chokes in close moments and cannot close out close games. This is fact and proven over his entire career and not just the last season or two like most people chose to look at.

So be careful not to get caught up in the short-sighted thinking that all of the media and most analysts have fallen into nowadays. History proves my points. Harden may get severely disengaged defensive when his teams arent engaged either, but he wins games constantly and is easier to build around his deficiencies. Westbrook MUST be option A and surrounded by shooters, which OKC has yet to do and should've done for the last 5 years even with Durant. So with all that said, OKC proved to Durant over a 7 year span that they cannot build a legitimately contending team by addressing team weaknesses. Why risk wasting more years of his career as Garnett did in Minnesota? OKC trading for Oladipo, whom I like, makes no sense besides Westbrook, so he should be trade bait because their games are very similar. If OKC doesn't surround Westbrook with shooters and reliable players to make game winning plays then do not be surprised if/when he leaves within a few years.

Bolded parts are absurd. Not sure we'll agree on this given some of the views expressed here, but I'll address a couple points. This will be my last post in this thread, so you can have the last word if you choose. We're further apart on this than when we started, and aren't getting closer.

A) Even if I concede that OKC built around him poorly, it doesn't change the point. Nobody would have held it against him for leaving. It's joining the team that beat him that reflects poorly on him. No amount of OKC bashing can change that. Jordan could have left the Bulls without much criticism, but not for the Pistons.

B) OKC made the conference finals 3 times, not 1 as you stated above in the bolded comment. In fact, they never failed to make AT LEAST the conference finals in any season where Westbrook and Durant were healthy. They were the 2nd or 3rd best team in the league every year they were healthy. That is the definition of a contender. They were healthy 3 seasons (2012, 2014, 2016) and made the finals in 2012, conference finals in 2014 and 2016.

C) You can blame management all you want, but all they can do is put you in the position. If Durant doesn't shoot 10-31 in game 5 and 12-31 in game 6 of the WCSF, they make the finals again. He played horrible in 2 elimination games where they had the chance to beat the Warriors, but he failed. How does he respond to this failure? By joining the team he failed against. Management can't make the shots for you. Management did their part, OKC was incredibly talented. Durant (and Westbrook) failed. It's OK to fail. All the greats failed before succeeding, but none of them joined the teams they failed against.

D) If you think the team he had in OKC is at all comparable to what Kevin Garnett had in Minnesota, then you and I will never agree on this. That's just an absurd comparison. Minnesota was a 1st round exit team every year, not even close to a contender aside from 1 fluke season. They had no future and no assets. OKC was in the conference finals every healthy year with 1 of the 5 youngest teams in the league every year. No comparison.

[hyberx]

A) Even if I concede that OKC built around him poorly, it doesn't change the point. Nobody would have held it against him for leaving. It's joining the team that beat him that reflects poorly on him. No amount of OKC bashing can change that. Jordan could have left the Bulls without much criticism, but not for the Pistons.

B) OKC made the conference finals 3 times, not 1 as you stated above in the bolded comment. In fact, they never failed to make AT LEAST the conference finals in any season where Westbrook and Durant were healthy. They were the 2nd or 3rd best team in the league every year they were healthy. That is the definition of a contender. They were healthy 3 seasons (2012, 2014, 2016) and made the finals in 2012, conference finals in 2014 and 2016.

C) You can blame management all you want, but all they can do is put you in the position. If Durant doesn't shoot 10-31 in game 5 and 12-31 in game 6 of the WCSF, they make the finals again. He played horrible in 2 elimination games where they had the chance to beat the Warriors, but he failed. How does he respond to this failure? By joining the team he failed against. Management can't make the shots for you. Management did their part, OKC was incredibly talented. Durant (and Westbrook) failed. It's OK to fail. All the greats failed before succeeding, but none of them joined the teams they failed against.

D) If you think the team he had in OKC is at all comparable to what Kevin Garnett had in Minnesota, then you and I will never agree on this. That's just an absurd comparison. Minnesota was a 1st round exit team every year, not even close to a contender aside from 1 fluke season. They had no future and no assets. OKC was in the conference finals every healthy year with 1 of the 5 youngest teams in the league every year. No comparison.

It's easy to sum this up as haters gotta hate given these same old points repeated.

KD did not joint the 2015 Warriors team that beat him. He jointed a team that lost 2 of their 5 starters in Bogut and Barnes, in addition to multiple important rotation players such as Mo, Barbosa. It's a totally different team. It's hypocritical to criticize KD while ignoring the other Super Teams that were formed by Boston and LBJ. There is virtually no difference.

It's also an irony that these same people who turned an blind eye when LBJ stepped over Green to instigate a push off, then whined to the league to suspend Green the next game which turned the tide of the series. Not to mention all his floppings in game 6 to get Curry tossed. Do those reflect poorly on LBJ? I am sure the Ws haters don't think so.

Sure you can blame KD for missing those shots in the Western conf final. That claim is as valid as saying the coaching staff should be blamed for running a iso Russ-go then KD-go outdated system and the management for putting that team/staff on the floor. It's a shared responsibility. At the end, Warriors has way more competent staff, management, and a team culture. What's wrong for a player wants to play in those kind of environment? Nothing.

[Note30]

A) Even if I concede that OKC built around him poorly, it doesn't change the point. Nobody would have held it against him for leaving. It's joining the team that beat him that reflects poorly on him. No amount of OKC bashing can change that. Jordan could have left the Bulls without much criticism, but not for the Pistons.

B) OKC made the conference finals 3 times, not 1 as you stated above in the bolded comment. In fact, they never failed to make AT LEAST the conference finals in any season where Westbrook and Durant were healthy. They were the 2nd or 3rd best team in the league every year they were healthy. That is the definition of a contender. They were healthy 3 seasons (2012, 2014, 2016) and made the finals in 2012, conference finals in 2014 and 2016.

C) You can blame management all you want, but all they can do is put you in the position. If Durant doesn't shoot 10-31 in game 5 and 12-31 in game 6 of the WCSF, they make the finals again. He played horrible in 2 elimination games where they had the chance to beat the Warriors, but he failed. How does he respond to this failure? By joining the team he failed against. Management can't make the shots for you. Management did their part, OKC was incredibly talented. Durant (and Westbrook) failed. It's OK to fail. All the greats failed before succeeding, but none of them joined the teams they failed against.

D) If you think the team he had in OKC is at all comparable to what Kevin Garnett had in Minnesota, then you and I will never agree on this. That's just an absurd comparison. Minnesota was a 1st round exit team every year, not even close to a contender aside from 1 fluke season. They had no future and no assets. OKC was in the conference finals every healthy year with 1 of the 5 youngest teams in the league every year. No comparison.

KD did not joint the 2015 Warriors team that beat him. He jointed a team that lost 2 of their 5 starters in Bogut and Barnes, in addition to multiple important rotation players such as Mo, Barbosa. It's a totally different team. It's hypocritical to criticize KD while ignoring the other Super Teams that were formed by Boston and LBJ. There is virtually no difference.

That sounds stupid. Yeah Ray Allen didn't join the same team that beat him in ECF when he went to the Heat.
Durant joined the same team, because the only people who matter stayed (i.e Curry, Klay, Draymond). And Barnes and Bogut were moved because of Durant otherwise they would likely still be there. Mo and Barbosa are replaceable players, they aren't core players and they don't make a huge difference.

It's also an irony that these same people who turned an blind eye when LBJ stepped over Green to instigate a push off, then whined to the league to suspend Green the next game which turned the tide of the series. Not to mention all his floppings in game 6 to get Curry tossed. Do those reflect poorly on LBJ? I am sure the Ws haters don't think so.

This has nothing to do with the previous arguments, you just want to eat your cake in the corner and not cry about being called a pig.

Sure you can blame KD for missing those shots in the Western conf final. That claim is as valid as saying the coaching staff should be blamed for running a iso Russ-go then KD-go outdated system and the management for putting that team/staff on the floor. It's a shared responsibility. At the end, Warriors has way more competent staff, management, and a team culture. What's wrong for a player wants to play in those kind of environment? Nothing.

[/quote]

If you can't put the ball through the hoop when needed or win a game when you're up 3-1 it proves you don't have that killer instinct. But I guess you would know a thing or two about blowing 3-1 leads now wouldn't you?

Sure he could have gone to other teams that provided that like the Spurs or some other team like the Hawks. But he chose to go to the Warriors cause he likes as one other poster so accurately put it "low hanging fruit"

[Pedro]

I don't disagree with anything you said. Golden State has done a marvelous job over the past 5 years. Every move a stroke of genius seemingly (with some luck involved in Curry's contract). They are worthy of all my hate.

I think it's possible to hold it against Durant as a competitor for signing with Golden State, while not holding it against Golden State as a franchise for signing Durant. This is because it is a team's job to put the best team on the court. It is a players job to compete. As we see, GS has put a monster of a team on the court. Great job on their part. Still, Durant leaving reflects poorly on him as a competitor. He is still a great, great player obviously and a pretty solid human being. No hate in that regard. I just wish OKC hadn't played against Golden State 5 weeks prior to him signing with them. It's not so much that Durant signed elsewhere or even that the team he signed with was better (although that stings a bit too), it's that he signed with the better team that he couldn't beat a very short time prior. He conceded that he couldn't beat them by signing with them. I don't think he can ever live that down in my mind. Our competitive instincts should dictate that we say run it back! and not let me join you guys after losing a 7 game series to a team by the slimmest of margins. That's just so anti-competitive on every level. And for all this, he absolutely has the right to do it, but fans also have the right to form their perception of him based on the decision. Great player, great person, not a leader, questionable competitor. That's my view of KD.

Its not Durants fault that many teams have front offices that do a poor job at making their teams competitive which makes The Warriors seem unfairly better. That team still has flaws and are beatable from a basketball fundamental perspective. Again, such a move forces others teams to make a better effort to build competitive teams. As for him leaving OKC, it was inevitable so in my eyes it reflected poorly that he didnt leave sooner. OKC did a poor job at improving the talent around him and one of the worse decisions in that regard was letting Harden go over Westbrook. While i admit that no one foresaw just how much better Harden would become, it was obvious to me for years that Westbrook and Durant do not and never have melded well on the court. This is why they failed in their lone Finals appearance and why they never reached the Finals again. Westbrook chokes in close moments and cannot close out close games. This is fact and proven over his entire career and not just the last season or two like most people chose to look at.

So be careful not to get caught up in the short-sighted thinking that all of the media and most analysts have fallen into nowadays. History proves my points. Harden may get severely disengaged defensive when his teams arent engaged either, but he wins games constantly and is easier to build around his deficiencies. Westbrook MUST be option A and surrounded by shooters, which OKC has yet to do and should've done for the last 5 years even with Durant. So with all that said, OKC proved to Durant over a 7 year span that they cannot build a legitimately contending team by addressing team weaknesses. Why risk wasting more years of his career as Garnett did in Minnesota? OKC trading for Oladipo, whom I like, makes no sense besides Westbrook, so he should be trade bait because their games are very similar. If OKC doesn't surround Westbrook with shooters and reliable players to make game winning plays then do not be surprised if/when he leaves within a few years.

Bolded parts are absurd. Not sure we'll agree on this given some of the views expressed here, but I'll address a couple points. This will be my last post in this thread, so you can have the last word if you choose. We're further apart on this than when we started, and aren't getting closer.

A) Even if I concede that OKC built around him poorly, it doesn't change the point. Nobody would have held it against him for leaving. It's joining the team that beat him that reflects poorly on him. No amount of OKC bashing can change that. Jordan could have left the Bulls without much criticism, but not for the Pistons.

B) OKC made the conference finals 3 times, not 1 as you stated above in the bolded comment. In fact, they never failed to make AT LEAST the conference finals in any season where Westbrook and Durant were healthy. They were the 2nd or 3rd best team in the league every year they were healthy. That is the definition of a contender. They were healthy 3 seasons (2012, 2014, 2016) and made the finals in 2012, conference finals in 2014 and 2016.

C) You can blame management all you want, but all they can do is put you in the position. If Durant doesn't shoot 10-31 in game 5 and 12-31 in game 6 of the WCSF, they make the finals again. He played horrible in 2 elimination games where they had the chance to beat the Warriors, but he failed. How does he respond to this failure? By joining the team he failed against. Management can't make the shots for you. Management did their part, OKC was incredibly talented. Durant (and Westbrook) failed. It's OK to fail. All the greats failed before succeeding, but none of them joined the teams they failed against.

D) If you think the team he had in OKC is at all comparable to what Kevin Garnett had in Minnesota, then you and I will never agree on this. That's just an absurd comparison. Minnesota was a 1st round exit team every year, not even close to a contender aside from 1 fluke season. They had no future and no assets. OKC was in the conference finals every healthy year with 1 of the 5 youngest teams in the league every year. No comparison.

Being that you now entered the realm of building critisms off of misquoting me, I'll correct your errors and leave it as that since your other points fall short.

I stated the fact that OKC made the Finals once. I made no mention of conference Finals.

As for your comment about Durants poor shooting contributing to their losses, if they have a better supporting cast then it wouldn't have been as easy for the best defenders to collapse on him. Thats basic basketball there that you chose to ignore.

The Garnett/Durant comparison was solely used to contrast how Garnett lost years of his prime due to loyalty, hoping they would improve the team and did not. Durant went further than Garnett more often because he had Westbrook, and Harden for some time, but fell short for all the reason I mentioned earlier. i made no further comparison.

Using your own point about OKC having assets, I feel they felt short in capitalizing their usage by the well know fact that the owners were publicly not willing to spend money to do so. That cements my comment about front office inadequacy. The possibility of Westbrook and Durant potentially finding successful championship chemistry might have been possible had OKC made a strong effort to give them better shooters, but they didnt. So the fact is that lack of a willingness to spend a bit more was the main reason they let Harden walk and it was the main reason they didnt add better talent around Westbrook and Durant. Those, and my observations, are enough for me to primarily blame management for OKCs loss of yet another star player.

Done!