Ranking best Thunder players [#3]

[getrichordie]

KD's not there either. And the accomplishments that got him anywhere near top 20 aren't from OKC.



Well good thing we've got RAPM that feels similar. Maybe Durant not being able to win without an MVP caliber point guard shows his impact is a bit dampened from his ability to iso score. I'm confused why PIPM is good enough to determine all NBA teams and not to differentiate here.

I don't think it's for certain either way, and know Westbrook might well be the minority opinion, but he's got an extra 2 full seasons, one of which was an MVP level year. Don't think it's open and shut.

I think you are in the overall minority. If you are just talking Thunder fans, you are probably in majority. Again, this is not about accumulative years. It is who was the best player while they were here hence Harden > Ibaka.

I think PIPM is a really strong stat that measures impact outside of counting stats, but circumstances must be taken into account as well. I.E. Porzingis over Siakam as Siakam had better team around him.

2012 Harden wasn't that level of good.

And you're ignoring context yourself. Westbrook had better impact numbers with the same basic teams.

Also that use for Siakam is not how to give context at all.

Edited for a capitalization but:

Context for impact metrics isn't "X had a better team around him", it's "X's role was larger/smaller/similar in type". Siakam is a larger part of Toronto's offense than Porzingis, who's not the primary focus of a defense or a heavy creator.

Also, the top 10/15 point made to ThunderBolt above didn't really make sense, it's either valid for both or neither. And if it's who's highest all time I'd say Harden's then ahead of Westbrook by a little, but again not because of his time in OKC.

I've already stated that it's not about highest all time. Hell, just ignore the top 10/15 thing then if it helps. I just thought it would help put into perspective the level of player Durant is versus Westbrook as you can "reverse-engineer" (for lack of a better term) from there because players don't go from being worse than Westbrook and turn into top 10/top 15 in a couple years. But for the sake of the discussion, let's just save that little bit for another time.

My point still stands about the #1/#2 discussion surrounding Durant but not Westbrook while they were both here @ OKC.

I'd like to also note that Westbrook wasn't a great fit for Durant and that Durant was a better fit for Westbrook. Both can be true.

Also, if Siakam's role is larger, then how is Porzingis' PIPM significantly higher? I fail to see what you are trying to get at. The kind of team around you HAS to have some sort of INDIRECT impact on your individual impact. Having better spacing around you opens up things for you as a player just like having a good defensive big behind you allows you to play up on players a little more and do more things on defense.

[getrichordie]

Also, if you do want to use PIPM (and RAPM).

Average PIPM from 2008-2016:

RS

Durant = 3.18 (w.a. = 91.6)
Westbrook = 3.08 (w.a. = 74.1)

PO

Durant = 2.9 (w.a. = 13.56)
Westbrook = 3.12 (w.a. = 11.37)

---

Ranked RAPM seasons (from 2010-2016)

1. Durant ('13-'14) = 4.3
2. Westbrook ('14-'15) = 4.06
3. Durant ('12-'13) = 3.55
4. Westbrook ('11-'12) = 3.13
5. Durant ('14-'15) = 3.09
6. Westbrook ('12-'13) = 2.98
7. Durant ('10-'11) = 2.94
8. Durant ('15-'16) = 2.86
9. Westbrook ('15-'16) = 2.82
10. Westbrook ('09-'10) = 2.45
11. Durant ('11-'12) = 2.32
12. Westbrook ('13-'14) = 2.18

---

Also important to note:

>Durant suffered his Jones' fracture in Oct. of the '14-'15 season.
>Westbrook suffered his knee injury in Apr. of '12-'13 season.

[bondom34]

Double post

[bondom34]

Also, if you do want to use PIPM (and RAPM).

Average PIPM from 2008-2016:

RS

Durant = 3.18 (w.a. = 91.6)
Westbrook = 3.08 (w.a. = 74.1)

PO

Durant = 2.9 (w.a. = 13.56)
Westbrook = 3.12 (w.a. = 11.37)

---

Ranked RAPM seasons (from 2010-2016)

1. Durant ('13-'14) = 4.3
2. Westbrook ('14-'15) = 4.06
3. Durant ('12-'13) = 3.55
4. Westbrook ('11-'12) = 3.13
5. Durant ('14-'15) = 3.09
6. Westbrook ('12-'13) = 2.98
7. Durant ('10-'11) = 2.94
8. Durant ('15-'16) = 2.86
9. Westbrook ('15-'16) = 2.82
10. Westbrook ('09-'10) = 2.45
11. Durant ('11-'12) = 2.32
12. Westbrook ('13-'14) = 2.18

---

Also important to note:

>Durant suffered his Jones' fracture in Oct. of the '14-'15 season.
>Westbrook suffered his knee injury in Apr. of '12-'13 season.

I literally just posted the images, 5 year RAPM has them exactly 1 spot apart. RPM has them similar, some ahead one season vs the other. I'm not sure why you've admitted many people would put Westbrook first and insist he's not because you said so despite statistical evidence. Westbrook peaked higher, and for some reason you left his MVP season and 2 following out of your sample which is incredibly convenient. I'll take how to misuse stats for 100.

Also IIRC RAPM can't be used like this list. You can't just cross compare season data. Try a 5 year sample.

[bondom34]

I've already stated that it's not about highest all time. Hell, just ignore the top 10/15 thing then if it helps. I just thought it would help put into perspective the level of player Durant is versus Westbrook as you can "reverse-engineer" (for lack of a better term) from there because players don't go from being worse than Westbrook and turn into top 10/top 15 in a couple years. But for the sake of the discussion, let's just save that little bit for another time.

My point still stands about the #1/#2 discussion surrounding Durant but not Westbrook while they were both here @ OKC.

I'd like to also note that Westbrook wasn't a great fit for Durant and that Durant was a better fit for Westbrook. Both can be true.

Also, if Siakam's role is larger, then how is Porzingis' PIPM significantly higher? I fail to see what you are trying to get at. The kind of team around you HAS to have some sort of INDIRECT impact on your individual impact. Having better spacing around you opens up things for you as a player just like having a good defensive big behind you allows you to play up on players a little more and do more things on defense.

OK, so still, Westbrook's peak vs Durant was similar. He played in OKC longer. He'd still be ahead. And if he were on Golden State he'd have 2 rings and Durant zero....so he'd be ahead all time? That point doesn't hold either.

And the point doesn't stand, because the offense fell off worse with Westbrook out than Durant. And Durant wasn't the defensive anchor either.

I'd note Durant really wasn't a great fit in Golden State either, and he wasn't according to you with Westbrook. So maybe he's the fit issue? Playmaking isn't as good as advertised and a heavy iso scorer who doesn't lift others to a better team offense as well as Westbrook did in those years.

And Siakam's role is larger because he plays a bigger part in what Toronto does? His usage rate is higher, his assist rate is higher, etc. PIPM doesn't show anything about a player's role. You're just entirely misreading how to interpret impact metrics. Siakam is Toronto's best player. He's a bigger part of what they do on both ends of the court, you need context for that by watching Toronto and understanding their team construction.

From 2013-16 Westbrook/no Durant lineups were better offensively than the no-Westbrook lineups. in the postseason the same trend held. Every impact metric points to the same. And you've gone on in multiple topics listing these metrics without context (or not understanding it) and now when two players with near identical surroundings show something you disagree with you decide they're not useful.

Edit: Example...

Robert Covington and Rubio consistently show up highly in impact metrics. That doesn't mean they play a larger role, or say anything about their teammates. It says basically that for the role they're in (passing PG, 3 and D wing with low usage) they impact a game X points per 200. C/P from the PC board...

A valid statement I can make based on RPM/some form of APM:

"If I put Steph Curry on any random team, I expect the team performance (MOV), while Steph Curry is on the court, to improve by 8.85 points per 100 possessions, given the the league-wide lineup data we have for the first 3 weeks of the 2016 season."

An invalid statement:

"Kyle Lowry is the 3rd best player in the league."

So either these metrics are useful or they're not. If everything is saying we've got 2 similar level players and one played longer in OKC, that's the guy who's 1.

[bondom34]

This whole topic makes no sense for criteria. Is it best peak? Best single season? Best for the franchise? If it's peak or single season Durant might be it. If it's best for the franchise he's not because the first two were close enough and one guy played longer. If its none of those and it's something based on all time then Harden should be 2nd.

[getrichordie]

I've already stated that it's not about highest all time. Hell, just ignore the top 10/15 thing then if it helps. I just thought it would help put into perspective the level of player Durant is versus Westbrook as you can "reverse-engineer" (for lack of a better term) from there because players don't go from being worse than Westbrook and turn into top 10/top 15 in a couple years. But for the sake of the discussion, let's just save that little bit for another time.

My point still stands about the #1/#2 discussion surrounding Durant but not Westbrook while they were both here @ OKC.

I'd like to also note that Westbrook wasn't a great fit for Durant and that Durant was a better fit for Westbrook. Both can be true.

Also, if Siakam's role is larger, then how is Porzingis' PIPM significantly higher? I fail to see what you are trying to get at. The kind of team around you HAS to have some sort of INDIRECT impact on your individual impact. Having better spacing around you opens up things for you as a player just like having a good defensive big behind you allows you to play up on players a little more and do more things on defense.

OK, so still, Westbrook's peak vs Durant was similar. He played in OKC longer. He'd still be ahead.

And the point doesn't stand, because the offense fell off worse with Westbrook out than Durant. And Durant wasn't the defensive anchor either.

I'd note Durant really wasn't a great fit in Golden State either, and he wasn't according to you with Westbrook. So maybe he's the fit issue? Playmaking isn't as good as advertised and a heavy iso scorer who doesn't lift others to a better team offense as well as Westbrook did in those years.

And Siakam's role is larger because he plays a bigger part in what Toronto does? His usage rate is higher, his assist rate is higher, etc. PIPM doesn't show anything about a player's role. You're just entirely misreading how to interpret impact metrics. Siakam is Toronto's best player. He's a bigger part of what they do on both ends of the court, you need context for that by watching Toronto and understanding their team construction.

From 2013-16 Westbrook/no Durant lineups were better offensively than the no-Westbrook lineups. in the postseason the same trend held. Every impact metric points to the same. And you've gone on in multiple topics listing these metrics without context (or not understanding it) and now when two players with near identical surroundings show something you disagree with you decide they're not useful.

What did I decide wasn't useful? I simply stated that this wasn't about accumulative production but production while here @ OKC.

And just because the offense fell of worse with Westbrook sitting than Durant sitting could be attributed to a number of things. Could just mean Durant played more minutes with the bench or that the back-up point guard was a worse fit with Durant the back up wing's fit w/ Westbrook. Too many variables.

2008-2016 PIPM stats:

Westbrook's ORtg on/off = 4.04
Durant's ORtg on/off = 3.26

When you look at the bigger picture (including D, it's a lot closer and crazier considering Durant isn't the facilitator Westbrook is)

Westbrook's on/off = 3.04
Durant's on/off = 2.78

And you still aren't answering my question as to why Porzingis has a higher PIPM if Siakam is doing so much more in Toronto? I get that his role was bigger and he was best player on team, but that does nothing to answer that question. If your answer is going to be that PIPM is flawed or isn't perfect, than it what way? How does it lead to Porzingis having better numbers?

[getrichordie]

This whole topic makes no sense for criteria. Is it best peak? Best single season? Best for the franchise? If it's peak or single season Durant might be it. If it's best for the franchise he's not because the first two were close enough and one guy played longer. If its none of those and it's something based on all time then Harden should be 2nd.

It's pretty simple. Follow criteria and decide whether player X or player Y was the better player WHILE they were wearing a Thunder jersey. How is that hard? So, for example, let's say George played for 3 years in OKC. Was he the better player for those 3 seasons, than let's say Ibaka ever was?

Honestly, to make things simpler for everyone, since it seems I have to, I'll probably just have a mod delete this and start over with ranking best individual seasons with the caveat that we once a player gets on the board, we don't rank his other seasons (with 3-years played criteria or 200 games played criteria) as it will most likely accomplish same thing.

[bondom34]

What did I decide wasn't useful? I simply stated that this wasn't about accumulative production but production while here @ OKC.

And just because the offense fell of worse with Westbrook sitting than Durant sitting could be attributed to a number of things. Could just mean Durant played more minutes with the bench or that the back-up point guard was a worse fit with Durant the back up wing's fit w/ Westbrook. Too many variables.

2008-2016 PIPM stats:

Westbrook's ORtg on/off = 4.04
Durant's ORtg on/off = 3.26

When you look at the bigger picture (including D, it's a lot closer and crazier considering Durant isn't the facilitator Westbrook is)

Westbrook's on/off = 3.04
Durant's on/off = 2.78

And you still aren't answering my question as to why Porzingis has a higher PIPM if Siakam is doing so much more in Toronto? I get that his role was bigger and he was best player on team, but that does nothing to answer that question. If your answer is going to be that PIPM is flawed or isn't perfect, than it what way? How does it lead to Porzingis having better numbers?

Well, you're entirely ignoring an MVP season and the two after and saying it's best player but not cumulative. And no, Westbrook with the bench was a better offense, that's the point (worse defense).

And why don't you use 2017 at all? Ignoring seasons is pretty much peak selective use of stats. When you look at PIPM in the bigger picture, Westbrook was better than Durant by your metric of choice in seasons they both were on the team.

Also if Westbrook's on/off is bigger...that means his impact was larger.

As for Siakam/KP, it's not saying KP is better. It's saying in his role his impact is that. That doesn't mean he's better, again think Covington/Rubio. It's because he's playing alongside others who demand attention where on Toronto Siakam is getting that attention.

[
It's pretty simple. Follow criteria and decide whether player X or player Y was the better player WHILE they were wearing a Thunder jersey. How is that hard? So, for example, let's say George played for 3 years in OKC. Was he the better player for those 3 seasons, than let's say Ibaka ever was?

Honestly, to make things simpler for everyone, since it seems I have to, I'll probably just have a mod delete this and start over with ranking best individual seasons with the caveat that we once a player gets on the board, we don't rank his other seasons (with 3-years played criteria or 200 games played criteria) as it will most likely accomplish same thing.

Oh, so it still is Westbrook? Because yeah if you keep ignoring 3 extra seasons in OKC, one of which was AN MVP AWARD WINNING SEASON yeah maybe you're right. But that's not what you keep saying. Why isn't Durant's MVP season cut out? Or in 2013 when Westbrook missed a series and Memphis ran over the team without him? Why are we selecting only the seasons until 2016 did Westbrook leave too?

It's basically asking who was the better player if you ignore that one guy played longer and ignore those seasons. It's a nonsensical criteria to select who you think is number one while ignoring what a few people have explained (and note: Thunderbolt isn't a huge Russ fan). Just list who you rank if that's the case since you don't seem to want input on it.

[getrichordie]

What did I decide wasn't useful? I simply stated that this wasn't about accumulative production but production while here @ OKC.

And just because the offense fell of worse with Westbrook sitting than Durant sitting could be attributed to a number of things. Could just mean Durant played more minutes with the bench or that the back-up point guard was a worse fit with Durant the back up wing's fit w/ Westbrook. Too many variables.

2008-2016 PIPM stats:

Westbrook's ORtg on/off = 4.04
Durant's ORtg on/off = 3.26

When you look at the bigger picture (including D, it's a lot closer and crazier considering Durant isn't the facilitator Westbrook is)

Westbrook's on/off = 3.04
Durant's on/off = 2.78

And you still aren't answering my question as to why Porzingis has a higher PIPM if Siakam is doing so much more in Toronto? I get that his role was bigger and he was best player on team, but that does nothing to answer that question. If your answer is going to be that PIPM is flawed or isn't perfect, than it what way? How does it lead to Porzingis having better numbers?

Well, you're entirely ignoring an MVP season and the two after and saying it's best player but not cumulative. And no, Westbrook with the bench was a better offense, that's the point (worse defense).

And why don't you use 2017 at all? Ignoring seasons is pretty much peak selective use of stats. When you look at PIPM in the bigger picture, Westbrook was better than Durant by your metric of choice in seasons they both were on the team.

Also if Westbrook's on/off is bigger...that means his impact was larger.

As for Siakam/KP, it's not saying KP is better. It's saying in his role his impact is that. That doesn't mean he's better, again think Covington/Rubio. It's because he's playing alongside others who demand attention where on Toronto Siakam is getting that attention.

[
It's pretty simple. Follow criteria and decide whether player X or player Y was the better player WHILE they were wearing a Thunder jersey. How is that hard? So, for example, let's say George played for 3 years in OKC. Was he the better player for those 3 seasons, than let's say Ibaka ever was?

Honestly, to make things simpler for everyone, since it seems I have to, I'll probably just have a mod delete this and start over with ranking best individual seasons with the caveat that we once a player gets on the board, we don't rank his other seasons (with 3-years played criteria or 200 games played criteria) as it will most likely accomplish same thing.

Oh, so it still is Westbrook? Because yeah if you keep ignoring 3 extra seasons in OKC, one of which was AN MVP AWARD WINNING SEASON yeah maybe you're right. But that's not what you keep saying. Why isn't Durant's MVP season cut out? Or in 2013 when Westbrook missed a series and Memphis ran over the team without him? Why are we selecting only the seasons until 2016 did Westbrook leave too?

It's basically asking who was the better player if you ignore that one guy played longer and ignore those seasons. It's a nonsensical criteria to select who you think is number one while ignoring what a few people have explained (and note: Thunderbolt isn't a huge Russ fan). Just list who you rank if that's the case since you don't seem to want input on it.

Didn't read all of this because I'm out of the house right now, but wasn't my intention to not include some seasons. Was just using seasons where Westbrook and Durant played for comparative analysis. If Durant player in OKC in 2017, I must have made a mistake.

[bondom34]

What did I decide wasn't useful? I simply stated that this wasn't about accumulative production but production while here @ OKC.

And just because the offense fell of worse with Westbrook sitting than Durant sitting could be attributed to a number of things. Could just mean Durant played more minutes with the bench or that the back-up point guard was a worse fit with Durant the back up wing's fit w/ Westbrook. Too many variables.

2008-2016 PIPM stats:

Westbrook's ORtg on/off = 4.04
Durant's ORtg on/off = 3.26

When you look at the bigger picture (including D, it's a lot closer and crazier considering Durant isn't the facilitator Westbrook is)

Westbrook's on/off = 3.04
Durant's on/off = 2.78

And you still aren't answering my question as to why Porzingis has a higher PIPM if Siakam is doing so much more in Toronto? I get that his role was bigger and he was best player on team, but that does nothing to answer that question. If your answer is going to be that PIPM is flawed or isn't perfect, than it what way? How does it lead to Porzingis having better numbers?

Well, you're entirely ignoring an MVP season and the two after and saying it's best player but not cumulative. And no, Westbrook with the bench was a better offense, that's the point (worse defense).

And why don't you use 2017 at all? Ignoring seasons is pretty much peak selective use of stats. When you look at PIPM in the bigger picture, Westbrook was better than Durant by your metric of choice in seasons they both were on the team.

Also if Westbrook's on/off is bigger...that means his impact was larger.

As for Siakam/KP, it's not saying KP is better. It's saying in his role his impact is that. That doesn't mean he's better, again think Covington/Rubio. It's because he's playing alongside others who demand attention where on Toronto Siakam is getting that attention.

[
It's pretty simple. Follow criteria and decide whether player X or player Y was the better player WHILE they were wearing a Thunder jersey. How is that hard? So, for example, let's say George played for 3 years in OKC. Was he the better player for those 3 seasons, than let's say Ibaka ever was?

Honestly, to make things simpler for everyone, since it seems I have to, I'll probably just have a mod delete this and start over with ranking best individual seasons with the caveat that we once a player gets on the board, we don't rank his other seasons (with 3-years played criteria or 200 games played criteria) as it will most likely accomplish same thing.

Oh, so it still is Westbrook? Because yeah if you keep ignoring 3 extra seasons in OKC, one of which was AN MVP AWARD WINNING SEASON yeah maybe you're right. But that's not what you keep saying. Why isn't Durant's MVP season cut out? Or in 2013 when Westbrook missed a series and Memphis ran over the team without him? Why are we selecting only the seasons until 2016 did Westbrook leave too?

It's basically asking who was the better player if you ignore that one guy played longer and ignore those seasons. It's a nonsensical criteria to select who you think is number one while ignoring what a few people have explained (and note: Thunderbolt isn't a huge Russ fan). Just list who you rank if that's the case since you don't seem to want input on it.

Didn't read all of this because I'm out of the house right now, but wasn't my intention to not include some seasons. Was just using seasons where Westbrook and Durant played for comparative analysis. If Durant player in OKC in 2017, I must have made a mistake.

No, he didn't. Westbrook did and WON MVP, ignoring it seems like a massively poor use of statistics. If you wanted to do this just make your own list, because if it's who contributed more to OKC, its Westbrook, no matter how little you seem to credit him for it.

Maybe instead of starting with the conclusion in mind, look into the numbers and see what they say.

And if you'd focus on postseason, Durant played almost 700 minutes without Westbrook from 2013-16. The team was a -4.5 net rating. Westbrook/no Durant was a -.5.

Durant w/o Westbrook produced a 102.45 offensive rating. Because again, he's not a great playmaker, and needed that.

[getrichordie]

Well, you're entirely ignoring an MVP season and the two after and saying it's best player but not cumulative. And no, Westbrook with the bench was a better offense, that's the point (worse defense).

And why don't you use 2017 at all? Ignoring seasons is pretty much peak selective use of stats. When you look at PIPM in the bigger picture, Westbrook was better than Durant by your metric of choice in seasons they both were on the team.

Also if Westbrook's on/off is bigger...that means his impact was larger.

As for Siakam/KP, it's not saying KP is better. It's saying in his role his impact is that. That doesn't mean he's better, again think Covington/Rubio. It's because he's playing alongside others who demand attention where on Toronto Siakam is getting that attention.



Oh, so it still is Westbrook? Because yeah if you keep ignoring 3 extra seasons in OKC, one of which was AN MVP AWARD WINNING SEASON yeah maybe you're right. But that's not what you keep saying. Why isn't Durant's MVP season cut out? Or in 2013 when Westbrook missed a series and Memphis ran over the team without him? Why are we selecting only the seasons until 2016 did Westbrook leave too?

It's basically asking who was the better player if you ignore that one guy played longer and ignore those seasons. It's a nonsensical criteria to select who you think is number one while ignoring what a few people have explained (and note: Thunderbolt isn't a huge Russ fan). Just list who you rank if that's the case since you don't seem to want input on it.

Didn't read all of this because I'm out of the house right now, but wasn't my intention to not include some seasons. Was just using seasons where Westbrook and Durant played for comparative analysis. If Durant player in OKC in 2017, I must have made a mistake.

No, he didn't. Westbrook did and WON MVP, ignoring it seems like a massively poor use of statistics. If you wanted to do this just make your own list, because if it's who contributed more to OKC, its Westbrook, no matter how little you seem to credit him for it.

Maybe instead of starting with the conclusion in mind, look into the numbers and see what they say.

And if you'd focus on postseason, Durant played almost 700 minutes without Westbrook from 2013-16. The team was a -4.5 net rating. Westbrook/no Durant was a -.5.

Durant w/o Westbrook produced a 102.45 offensive rating. Because again, he's not a great playmaker, and needed that.

You seem intent on wanting to make this about cumulative contributions. I mean, yeah, Westbrook wins out on cumulative contributions by a pretty wide margin. I don't disagree there.

I'd also like to see who Durant played with in those 700 minutes.

[bondom34]

Didn't read all of this because I'm out of the house right now, but wasn't my intention to not include some seasons. Was just using seasons where Westbrook and Durant played for comparative analysis. If Durant player in OKC in 2017, I must have made a mistake.

No, he didn't. Westbrook did and WON MVP, ignoring it seems like a massively poor use of statistics. If you wanted to do this just make your own list, because if it's who contributed more to OKC, its Westbrook, no matter how little you seem to credit him for it.

Maybe instead of starting with the conclusion in mind, look into the numbers and see what they say.

And if you'd focus on postseason, Durant played almost 700 minutes without Westbrook from 2013-16. The team was a -4.5 net rating. Westbrook/no Durant was a -.5.

Durant w/o Westbrook produced a 102.45 offensive rating. Because again, he's not a great playmaker, and needed that.

You seem intent on wanting to make this about cumulative contributions. I mean, yeah, Westbrook wins out on cumulative contributions by a pretty wide margin. I don't disagree there.

I'd also like to see who Durant played with in those 700 minutes.

He played with the bench. Just like Westbrook would have. And I don't think the backup SF situation was great either. Impact metrics would agree, and yeah if you just toss out an entire MVP season and pretend it didn't happen.

Saying you want to rank players based on their time in OKC but not cumulative contributions is a direct contradiction. Is it on their whole time in OKC or not? The parameters aren't well defined and the entire thing started with an assumption going against a lot of advanced metrics that I know you'd use in any other comparison. The answer to the thread is 1 is Westbrook.

[spearsy23]

This thread became exactly what OP was wanting out of it, and is just a rehash of the other thread that's on the front page.

[spearsy23]

If you're wanting to know who peaked the best while here why would you limit it to 3 seasons just so you could include all-star level harden but not mvp level Paul george?

[QPR]

I’m talking about who was the best while they were here. Not longevity and accumulative contributions.

So the criteria is the best while they were here and not longevity, but you've also eliminated a guy who was top three in MVP voting and first team All-NBA because he didn't play in OKC long enough?