RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #14 (Oscar Robertson)

[Doctor MJ]

I'm curious about realizing 2011 not being Nowitzki's peak would change the arguments going in his favour.

I usually considered 2006 as his peak because his motor in 2011 was way lower. Surely, he had massive impact as usual. In both of my RAPM resources, he had the highest values thanks to his offensive impact. His O-RAPM was top 3 along with Nash and Wade.
In the recent talks about Nowitzki, I keep pointing out his struggles against players like Marion, who tried to limit his movement over his shots (and succeeded), and he didn't have that kind of issue in 2011.

But his performance / production as a whole was not there. The gap between 2006 and 2011 regular seasons are just too much.
2006; 3089 minutes, 28.1 per (#1), 13.5 ows (#1), 0.275 ws/48 (#1), 7.8 obpm (#1), 7.9 vorp (#3)
2011; 2504 minutes, 23.4 per (#10), 7.8 ows (#9), 0.213 ws/48 (#7), 4.3 obpm (#9), 4.5 vorp (#10)

And it wasn't like his impact was not there. #5 in RAPM, #3 among 2400+ minute players after Wade and Duncan. #4 on O-RAPM, top 1% again.

Having a big stretching the floor is very valuable, if that's Nowitzki it is insanely valuable. But that shouldn't make us overlook his rebounding. He was already an OK rebounder, not a particularly good one.
2006; 9.0 reb per game and 12.9 reb per 100 in r. season / 11.7 reb per game and 14.7 reb per 100 in playoffs
2011; 7.0 reb per game and 10.8 reb per 100 in r. season / 8.1 reb per game and 11.5 reb per 100 in playoffs

Looking at his scoring, surely he had a better postseason run in 2011 but his offense as a whole?
2006 playoffs; 27.0 pts per game, 34.0 pts per 100 on .596 ts - 26.8 per, 0.185 ows/48, 7.8 obpm
2011 playoffs; 27.7 pts per game, 39.1 pts per 100 on .609 ts - 25.2 per, 0.158 ows/48, 4.7 obpm

In 2006, his defensive effort was higher, he was more mobile - his lateral quickness was better, he hustled more aggressively.

I feel like this is winning bias...

I think there's a recurring phenomenon of players peaking in regular season impact before they become bullet proof against playoff competition.

I think Dirk in 2011 was more resilient than he was in 2007, and that matters. So to me the debate isn't about younger vs older prime Dirk, but whether 2011 is the precise peak. Winning bias makes us focus there, but to me it's really a question of when he figured things out in the aftermath of 2007.

I think LeBron was at his most valuable in 2009, his more portable in 2013, and his most bullet proof from his success in the 2016 finals onwards.

I think people think that Steph Curry's game is fundamentally problematic to some degree in the playoffs, and I just think he needs to figure some things out. Will he ever have a year as consistently good as '15-16? Nah, but he's already had playoff runs more impressive than that one, and if he can get back to where he was before injury, he'll probably get even better (though more championships are of course no guarantee even then).

I think Bird & Magic displayed some of this, so did Kareem, and probably Wilt too to a degree.

I see your point but none of your examples had a disparity that big. Especially among their regular season performances.

Picking 2011 Nowitzki over 2006 version is, not exactly but, more like picking 2007 Duncan over 2002/2003 Duncan for me, rather than 2009-2013 James. The gap between motors are just too big.

Maybe watch the 2007 series against the Warriors on repeat?

[Odinn21]

Maybe watch the 2007 series against the Warriors on repeat?

On the other thread about Barkley vs. Nowitzki, the Mavs fans are after me for calling out the gap on Nowitzki's offense.
Surely he got better with his postseason resilience. But the time his actual production and performance matched with Barkley or Karl Malone for instance, was 2006 and not 2011.
He had a massive issue with his offense in 2006. But his motor and overall production was far better. In 2011, he did not have that gap but he also did not have that total output as well.
Had Nowitzki have a season like 2006 regular season + 2011 postseason, I'd probably the first one to jump on him to rank this high. But with all the talks going on about his comparison to Barkley and Malone, he's no better TBH. Nowitzki would probably come ahead of them it 2006 rs + 2011 ps was the case but I feel like people are focusing his 2011 postseason run solely without looking much at his regular season.
When we factor in regular season performances (and we should), do we really think that 2011 Nowitzki peaked higher than 1990/1993 Barkley or 1998 Malone? I mean by a clear and a big margin to create a difference in tiers?

Many of the comments/arguments for him overlook that part, and they also overlook his struggles on offense up until at least half of his prime (more like two third IMO).

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I don't like Dirk over Robinson.
For impact in their era Mikan and Oscar make sense.
For the best guy who's name begins with H and ends with cek I orefer Havilcek over Hornacek.
Silly me, I thought the Hornacek guy was seious. Him being a troll makes more sense.

[Dutchball97]

Okay so I understand Karl Malone was really good for really long but imo his longevity is a disadvantage if anything against certain other players.

I mentioned in the last thread that Karl Malone, Dirk and KD have nearly identical cumulative stats in the play-offs. Dirk has 23.1 WS and 11.8 VORP, KD has 23.1 WS and 12.6 VORP and Karl Malone has 23 WS and 12.1 VORP.

The main difference is that KD needed 139 play-off games to reach these numbers, Dirk needed 145 games and Karl Malone needed 193 games to do the same the other two did in about 50 less games. To me that looks like Karl Malone gets rated ahead of the other two because he played for longer but it seems like people are overlooking how even with Karl Malone's lengthy career, KD has already done at least as much in the play-offs. That means KD was better than Karl year by year by quite a bit.

In comparisons like Kobe vs KG or West vs Oscar you have one more succesful play-off performer vs someone with a clear regular season edge. What I'm arguing here is that KD is a step above Karl Malone both in the play-offs and regular season.

[70sFan]

Okay so I understand Karl Malone was really good for really long but imo his longevity is a disadvantage if anything against certain other players.

I mentioned in the last thread that Karl Malone, Dirk and KD have nearly identical cumulative stats in the play-offs. Dirk has 23.1 WS and 11.8 VORP, KD has 23.1 WS and 12.6 VORP and Karl Malone has 23 WS and 12.1 VORP.

The main difference is that KD needed 139 play-off games to reach these numbers, Dirk needed 145 games and Karl Malone needed 193 games to do the same the other two did in about 50 less games. To me that looks like Karl Malone gets rated ahead of the other two because he played for longer but it seems like people are overlooking how even with Karl Malone's lengthy career, KD has already done at least as much in the play-offs. That means KD was better than Karl year by year by quite a bit.

In comparisons like Kobe vs KG or West vs Oscar you have one more succesful play-off performer vs someone with a clear regular season edge. What I'm arguing here is that KD is a step above Karl Malone both in the play-offs and regular season.

Durant's culminative playoffs stats are vastly inflated by GSW era, when he had the easiest situation among all top 25 players ever.

[Dutchball97]

Okay so I understand Karl Malone was really good for really long but imo his longevity is a disadvantage if anything against certain other players.

I mentioned in the last thread that Karl Malone, Dirk and KD have nearly identical cumulative stats in the play-offs. Dirk has 23.1 WS and 11.8 VORP, KD has 23.1 WS and 12.6 VORP and Karl Malone has 23 WS and 12.1 VORP.

The main difference is that KD needed 139 play-off games to reach these numbers, Dirk needed 145 games and Karl Malone needed 193 games to do the same the other two did in about 50 less games. To me that looks like Karl Malone gets rated ahead of the other two because he played for longer but it seems like people are overlooking how even with Karl Malone's lengthy career, KD has already done at least as much in the play-offs. That means KD was better than Karl year by year by quite a bit.

In comparisons like Kobe vs KG or West vs Oscar you have one more succesful play-off performer vs someone with a clear regular season edge. What I'm arguing here is that KD is a step above Karl Malone both in the play-offs and regular season.

Durant's culminative playoffs stats are vastly inflated by GSW era, when he had the easiest situation among all top 25 players ever.

I'm going to have to disagree on both points. KD was better than Curry (or at least more productive) in their years together, which makes it an even easier situation for Curry than KD. It's just so easy to only judge Durant on this and no one else. MJ's pretty stacked Bulls teams in the talent barren late 90s ring a bell? LeBron on the Heatles? The Shaq/Kobe Lakers? Bill Russell's entire career? It's not even a point of criticism that came up for any of those guys but now we get to the snake and for him it disqualifies him? That seems like a very bad faith way of looking at things.

You're talking like KD's Warriors years were far more productive than the Thunder years but that's once again not true. I'm not going to post all the WS and VORP numbers for KD when it's just one easy click away on bkref but 2012 edges out 2018 for KD's most productive year in both categories and there isn't even a massive notable difference between the OKC and GSW years on yhe whole. Even when we're excluding the GSW years (which would be dumb) then KD would already be catching up to Karl Malone rapidly and would've still peaked much higher already as well.

If anything, I'm interested in hearing what seperates Karl from his teammate Stockton. And I'm honestly not really planning on voting for Stockton untill the late 20s/early 30s either. Is it just the MVPs?

[70sFan]

Okay so I understand Karl Malone was really good for really long but imo his longevity is a disadvantage if anything against certain other players.

I mentioned in the last thread that Karl Malone, Dirk and KD have nearly identical cumulative stats in the play-offs. Dirk has 23.1 WS and 11.8 VORP, KD has 23.1 WS and 12.6 VORP and Karl Malone has 23 WS and 12.1 VORP.

The main difference is that KD needed 139 play-off games to reach these numbers, Dirk needed 145 games and Karl Malone needed 193 games to do the same the other two did in about 50 less games. To me that looks like Karl Malone gets rated ahead of the other two because he played for longer but it seems like people are overlooking how even with Karl Malone's lengthy career, KD has already done at least as much in the play-offs. That means KD was better than Karl year by year by quite a bit.

In comparisons like Kobe vs KG or West vs Oscar you have one more succesful play-off performer vs someone with a clear regular season edge. What I'm arguing here is that KD is a step above Karl Malone both in the play-offs and regular season.

Durant's culminative playoffs stats are vastly inflated by GSW era, when he had the easiest situation among all top 25 players ever.

I'm going to have to disagree on both points. KD was better than Curry (or at least more productive) in their years together, which makes it an even easier situation for Curry than KD. It's just so easy to only judge Durant on this and no one else. MJ's pretty stacked Bulls teams in the talent barren late 90s ring a bell? LeBron on the Heatles? The Shaq/Kobe Lakers? Bill Russell's entire career? It's not even a point of criticism that came up for any of those guys but now we get to the snake and for him it disqualifies him? That seems like a very bad faith way of looking at things.

You're talking like KD's Warriors years were far more productive than the Thunder years but that's once again not true. I'm not going to post all the WS and VORP numbers for KD when it's just one easy click away on bkref but 2012 edges out 2018 for KD's most productive year in both categories and there isn't even a massive notable difference between the OKC and GSW years on yhe whole. Even when we're excluding the GSW years (which would be dumb) then KD would already be catching up to Karl Malone rapidly and would've still peaked much higher already as well.

If anything, I'm interested in hearing what seperates Karl from his teammate Stockton. And I'm honestly not really planning on voting for Stockton untill the late 20s/early 30s either. Is it just the MVPs?

If you really think that Jordan's or Russell's team situation is comparable to Durant's then we have nothing to discuss. Warriors team would be main contender for winning titiles without Durant in 2017-18.

Durant posted 14.1 WS (0.177 WS/48) and 8.0 VORP in 91 OKC playoff games. He posted 9.0 WS (0.244 WS/48) and 4.6 VORP in Warriors in only 46 games. That's significant difference. Not to mention that his boxscore production was significantly higher in Warriors as well.

Saying that Malone had Stockton when Durant had Curry/Green/Klay/Iggy is unreasonable. KD played with the most stacked team of all-time, Malone's Jazz weren't that talented (although they were good when they added Hornacek, their depth was poor).

If anything, tell me what KD did before joining the Warriors that separated him from Karl Malone. What makes him that much better outside of VORP or WS (which aren't good at measuring who's better player)? Because Malone's longevity edge is gigantic.

[Sublime187]

For all the people voting Mikan.

Don't you think he should be even more scrutinized for his era then we are currently doing? For his career he played with a limited amount of black athletes. If the black athletes were allowed in full force into the league I do not think there is anyway he reaches the heights that he did.

Yes, again he played in the era given to him but this is not just a weak era this is basically him going up against players who are definitely not the best in the world.

Look at the top 20, we might have two white guys that make the list. This is no doubt a sport dominated by black players and Mikan had to play against only a few black athletes. If we take guys that dominated even the 60 and 70s they would absolutely destroy the league Mikan played in. Hell, even a guy like say Andrew Bynum would be the player in the world in that setting.

Just my thoughts. I just feel that this is not some era where the talent pool just wasn't great, it was in fact a specific demographic that usually dominates the game that had a quota on how many can play in the league. How do we know there were not better players then Mikan out there that were just not allowed in the league. Was there some kind of propaganda going on to make sure the best player in the league was white? Just too many variables and unknowns to consider Mikan this early...

[Hornet Mania]

For all the people voting Mikan.

Don't you think he should be even more scrutinized for his era then we are currently doing? For his career he played with a limited amount of black athletes. If the black athletes were allowed in full force into the league I do not think there is anyway he reaches the heights that he did.

Yes, again he played in the era given to him but this is not just a weak era this is basically him going up against players who are definitely not the best in the world.

Look at the top 20, we might have two white guys that make the list. This is no doubt a sport dominated by black players and Mikan had to play against only a few black athletes. If we take guys that dominated even the 60 and 70s they would absolutely destroy the league Mikan played in. Hell, even a guy like say Andrew Bynum would be the player in the world in that setting.

Just my thoughts. I just feel that this is not some era where the talent pool just wasn't great, it was in fact a specific demographic that usually dominates the game that had a quota on how many can play in the league. How do we know there were not better players then Mikan out there that were just not allowed in the league. Was there some kind of propaganda going on to make sure the best player in the league was white? Just too many variables and unknowns to consider Mikan this early...

Personally I do care about the strength of era to an extent, but at a certain point completely dominating a stretch of league history has to be recognized. For me that point is about #15 (my vote this round goes to Oscar).

Do I think Mikan was the 15th best player of all-time in terms of skills? Almost certainly not. But I do think he was an incredibly consequential player in the history of the league, its first real star.

I'm trying to weigh historical significance as well as skill, and it's not an easy thing to do. Mikan could be argued way higher in terms of being dominant in a way only a handful of other guys have been. Mikan could be argued way lower due to the fact it seems likely many modern players could hop in the time machine and crush his era. In the end I decided to split the difference at 15. I feel like ranking him there shows respect to his role as a pioneer without putting him ahead of too many top-tier legends.

As for the race part, it seems possible we'll end up with 1/5 of the top 20 being white (Bird/West already in, Dirk/Mikan with traction). I don't really give anyone bonus points or demerits for that though, it's just the way things have shaken out through history. Obviously segregation is a black mark on American society as a whole during Mikan's time but I don't see much evidence to suggest his reputation was based on white supremacist propaganda. He dominated the league on paper and by all eye-witness accounts. I suppose there could hypothetically be better black players at the time but it's not a certainty, his size/skill combo is rare and basically created the elite big man archetype that the league would chase for decades after. I feel confident that he was at worst a very special player after adjusting for era.

[penbeast0]

I think Mikan is probably considerably higher than the 15th best player of all time looking at skills and athleticism RELATIVE TO HIS ERA. I don't think you can look at these factors in a vacuum.

Most people aren't even considering him or his era, so in terms of do I think his era is receiving enough scrutiny, no, it isn't. With no era differential, Mikan would have a real shot at top 5 of all time; with the era differential, I can see him anywhere from #6 to #29 because, as you said, the era is racially and demographically much more limited. That said, Bob Pettit started in a league with no black stars and one year before his retirement in the mid 60s, he was still producing at the same level and still one of the top 6 players in the league. There are white players who play at the top level in this league (Jerry West, Dirk Nowitzki, Larry Bird, etc) and Mikan's degree of dominance should have people at least looking at him even if they then say, "no, not yet."

[70sFan]

\Look at the top 20, we might have two white guys that make the list.

We already have 2 white players inside top 13 and then we'll likely finish with Dirk. Mikan could also finish inside top 20.

[70sFan]

What are your thoughts on Pettit vs Mikan? Was George much better at his peak than Bob?

[penbeast0]

What are your thoughts on Pettit vs Mikan? Was George much better at his peak than Bob?

More dominant on the defensive end, certainly. Pettit was a good defender, Mikan was the dominant defender of his era. ON the offensive end, it's less clear; Pettit was probably the most efficient and prolific scorer of the mid 50s, a great rebounder, and he lived at the foul line. Mikan for his era also drew the most fouls, was probably a better post passer than Pettit, and was also a prolific scorer and rebounder. I would say offensively it is close.

[homecourtloss]

Okay so I understand Karl Malone was really good for really long but imo his longevity is a disadvantage if anything against certain other players.

I mentioned in the last thread that Karl Malone, Dirk and KD have nearly identical cumulative stats in the play-offs. Dirk has 23.1 WS and 11.8 VORP, KD has 23.1 WS and 12.6 VORP and Karl Malone has 23 WS and 12.1 VORP.

The main difference is that KD needed 139 play-off games to reach these numbers, Dirk needed 145 games and Karl Malone needed 193 games to do the same the other two did in about 50 less games. To me that looks like Karl Malone gets rated ahead of the other two because he played for longer but it seems like people are overlooking how even with Karl Malone's lengthy career, KD has already done at least as much in the play-offs. That means KD was better than Karl year by year by quite a bit.

In comparisons like Kobe vs KG or West vs Oscar you have one more succesful play-off performer vs someone with a clear regular season edge. What I'm arguing here is that KD is a step above Karl Malone both in the play-offs and regular season.

Durant's culminative playoffs stats are vastly inflated by GSW era, when he had the easiest situation among all top 25 players ever.

I'm going to have to disagree on both points. KD was better than Curry (or at least more productive) in their years together, which makes it an even easier situation for Curry than KD. It's just so easy to only judge Durant on this and no one else. MJ's pretty stacked Bulls teams in the talent barren late 90s ring a bell? LeBron on the Heatles? The Shaq/Kobe Lakers? Bill Russell's entire career? It's not even a point of criticism that came up for any of those guys but now we get to the snake and for him it disqualifies him? That seems like a very bad faith way of looking at things.

Those other situations aren’t remotely close to KD’s situation. I agree that we cannot just wash out his GS years and that he played exceptionally well in these Finals, but you cannot make a good faith comparison to those other players.

Yes, Jordan played on teams that were better than the competition, but he was the driving force behind them being better, even in the late ‘90s, though overall team defense helped his legacy since his offense in the ‘96-‘98 Finals doesn’t blow anyone away.

LeBron was the engine for why that Heat team was so good. What the Heat did without him on court is a testament to that though in the 2013 playoffs, they held their own at neutral at least.

Same with Shaq and Russell.

Curry was GS’s driving engine and the Warriors were just fine without KD in the lineup, and Curry did just fine without KD on court. Almost every team’s top priority was stopping Curry, the player whom they were most scared of. Take a look at Curry vs KD RPM, RAPM, PIPM, RAPTOR, CORP, etc., etc. during this period. Look at on/off data, look at Curry’s TS% with KD and without KD and then look at KD’s the same way.

[Jordan Syndrome]

I'm going to hard disagree with any notion of placing Durant ahead of Curry as a player in 2017 or 2018.

[BigBoss23]

Durant's culminative playoffs stats are vastly inflated by GSW era, when he had the easiest situation among all top 25 players ever.

I'm going to have to disagree on both points. KD was better than Curry (or at least more productive) in their years together, which makes it an even easier situation for Curry than KD. It's just so easy to only judge Durant on this and no one else. MJ's pretty stacked Bulls teams in the talent barren late 90s ring a bell? LeBron on the Heatles? The Shaq/Kobe Lakers? Bill Russell's entire career? It's not even a point of criticism that came up for any of those guys but now we get to the snake and for him it disqualifies him? That seems like a very bad faith way of looking at things.

You're talking like KD's Warriors years were far more productive than the Thunder years but that's once again not true. I'm not going to post all the WS and VORP numbers for KD when it's just one easy click away on bkref but 2012 edges out 2018 for KD's most productive year in both categories and there isn't even a massive notable difference between the OKC and GSW years on yhe whole. Even when we're excluding the GSW years (which would be dumb) then KD would already be catching up to Karl Malone rapidly and would've still peaked much higher already as well.

If anything, I'm interested in hearing what seperates Karl from his teammate Stockton. And I'm honestly not really planning on voting for Stockton untill the late 20s/early 30s either. Is it just the MVPs?

If you really think that Jordan's or Russell's team situation is comparable to Durant's then we have nothing to discuss. Warriors team would be main contender for winning titiles without Durant in 2017-18.

Durant posted 14.1 WS (0.177 WS/48) and 8.0 VORP in 91 OKC playoff games. He posted 9.0 WS (0.244 WS/48) and 4.6 VORP in Warriors in only 46 games. That's significant difference. Not to mention that his boxscore production was significantly higher in Warriors as well.

Saying that Malone had Stockton when Durant had Curry/Green/Klay/Iggy is unreasonable. KD played with the most stacked team of all-time, Malone's Jazz weren't that talented (although they were good when they added Hornacek, their depth was poor).

If anything, tell me what KD did before joining the Warriors that separated him from Karl Malone. What makes him that much better outside of VORP or WS (which aren't good at measuring who's better player)? Because Malone's longevity edge is gigantic.

Actually, no. Durant's stats weren't "vastly" inflated at GSW, if they were even inflated at all. His efficiency was always elite and trending up even at OKC, much like Lebron's efficiency shot through the roof in Miami then dropped dramatically in his first season back in Cleveland.

Easiest top 25 situation ever? Also, no. Sounds more like you have a problem with him deciding his own free agency choice and one of sour grapes.

That's some blatant bias against certain players for a registered voter on this project.

[The Master]

Actually, no. Durant's stats weren't "vastly" inflated at GSW, if they were even inflated at all. His efficiency was always elite and trending up even at OKC, much like Lebron's efficiency shot through the roof in Miami then dropped dramatically in his first season back in Cleveland.

Well, they were, increase of Durant's PER, TS%, WS/48 or BPM stats is quite obvious, and it can't be explained by hypothetical peaking in GSW considering a fact how his production looked like in 2014 (MVP season) or 2016 (a year before joining Warriors).

LeBron 11-14 had very similar production in PS to LeBron 15-18, with one year worse (2011 and 2015) thanks to '11 Finals and injury issues (2015).

[70sFan]

What are your thoughts on Pettit vs Mikan? Was George much better at his peak than Bob?

More dominant on the defensive end, certainly. Pettit was a good defender, Mikan was the dominant defender of his era. ON the offensive end, it's less clear; Pettit was probably the most efficient and prolific scorer of the mid 50s, a great rebounder, and he lived at the foul line. Mikan for his era also drew the most fouls, was probably a better post passer than Pettit, and was also a prolific scorer and rebounder. I would say offensively it is close.

Are there any evidences of Mikan being strong defender? I know that Lakers were dominant defensively, but I've also heard that his supporting cast was the main reason for that - not him. I don't have any strong opinion about it, so if anyone could explain that I'd highly appreciate that.

Here is (almost) full Mikan game for anyone who'd like to watch him:

Watch on YouTube

[70sFan]

I'm going to have to disagree on both points. KD was better than Curry (or at least more productive) in their years together, which makes it an even easier situation for Curry than KD. It's just so easy to only judge Durant on this and no one else. MJ's pretty stacked Bulls teams in the talent barren late 90s ring a bell? LeBron on the Heatles? The Shaq/Kobe Lakers? Bill Russell's entire career? It's not even a point of criticism that came up for any of those guys but now we get to the snake and for him it disqualifies him? That seems like a very bad faith way of looking at things.

You're talking like KD's Warriors years were far more productive than the Thunder years but that's once again not true. I'm not going to post all the WS and VORP numbers for KD when it's just one easy click away on bkref but 2012 edges out 2018 for KD's most productive year in both categories and there isn't even a massive notable difference between the OKC and GSW years on yhe whole. Even when we're excluding the GSW years (which would be dumb) then KD would already be catching up to Karl Malone rapidly and would've still peaked much higher already as well.

If anything, I'm interested in hearing what seperates Karl from his teammate Stockton. And I'm honestly not really planning on voting for Stockton untill the late 20s/early 30s either. Is it just the MVPs?

If you really think that Jordan's or Russell's team situation is comparable to Durant's then we have nothing to discuss. Warriors team would be main contender for winning titiles without Durant in 2017-18.

Durant posted 14.1 WS (0.177 WS/48) and 8.0 VORP in 91 OKC playoff games. He posted 9.0 WS (0.244 WS/48) and 4.6 VORP in Warriors in only 46 games. That's significant difference. Not to mention that his boxscore production was significantly higher in Warriors as well.

Saying that Malone had Stockton when Durant had Curry/Green/Klay/Iggy is unreasonable. KD played with the most stacked team of all-time, Malone's Jazz weren't that talented (although they were good when they added Hornacek, their depth was poor).

If anything, tell me what KD did before joining the Warriors that separated him from Karl Malone. What makes him that much better outside of VORP or WS (which aren't good at measuring who's better player)? Because Malone's longevity edge is gigantic.

Actually, no. Durant's stats weren't "vastly" inflated at GSW, if they were even inflated at all. His efficiency was always elite and trending up even at OKC, much like Lebron's efficiency shot through the roof in Miami then dropped dramatically in his first season back in Cleveland.

Easiest top 25 situation ever? Also, no. Sounds more like you have a problem with him deciding his own free agency choice and one of sour grapes.

That's some blatant bias against certain players for a registered voter on this project.

I don't vote in this project, so don't worry about project results

If you can't see how different Durant's situation was, it's on you.

[Dutchball97]

Durant's culminative playoffs stats are vastly inflated by GSW era, when he had the easiest situation among all top 25 players ever.

I'm going to have to disagree on both points. KD was better than Curry (or at least more productive) in their years together, which makes it an even easier situation for Curry than KD. It's just so easy to only judge Durant on this and no one else. MJ's pretty stacked Bulls teams in the talent barren late 90s ring a bell? LeBron on the Heatles? The Shaq/Kobe Lakers? Bill Russell's entire career? It's not even a point of criticism that came up for any of those guys but now we get to the snake and for him it disqualifies him? That seems like a very bad faith way of looking at things.

You're talking like KD's Warriors years were far more productive than the Thunder years but that's once again not true. I'm not going to post all the WS and VORP numbers for KD when it's just one easy click away on bkref but 2012 edges out 2018 for KD's most productive year in both categories and there isn't even a massive notable difference between the OKC and GSW years on yhe whole. Even when we're excluding the GSW years (which would be dumb) then KD would already be catching up to Karl Malone rapidly and would've still peaked much higher already as well.

If anything, I'm interested in hearing what seperates Karl from his teammate Stockton. And I'm honestly not really planning on voting for Stockton untill the late 20s/early 30s either. Is it just the MVPs?

If you really think that Jordan's or Russell's team situation is comparable to Durant's then we have nothing to discuss. Warriors team would be main contender for winning titiles without Durant in 2017-18.

Durant posted 14.1 WS (0.177 WS/48) and 8.0 VORP in 91 OKC playoff games. He posted 9.0 WS (0.244 WS/48) and 4.6 VORP in Warriors in only 46 games. That's significant difference. Not to mention that his boxscore production was significantly higher in Warriors as well.

Saying that Malone had Stockton when Durant had Curry/Green/Klay/Iggy is unreasonable. KD played with the most stacked team of all-time, Malone's Jazz weren't that talented (although they were good when they added Hornacek, their depth was poor).

If anything, tell me what KD did before joining the Warriors that separated him from Karl Malone. What makes him that much better outside of VORP or WS (which aren't good at measuring who's better player)? Because Malone's longevity edge is gigantic.

I'm going to keep it short because I'm at a loss for words. You say KD getting more WS and VORP on average in his GSW years means his OKC years don't count for much but then you turn around and disregard WS and VORP entirely. In 2012, at 23 years old he led his team to the finals. He had a PER of 27.5, TS% of 63.2, 4 WS, .231 WS/48, 8.1 BPM and 2.2 VORP. But sure he never did anything. I'm disappointed tbh. The GSW move has people so riled up they stop being objective.