BigBoss23 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:Cavsfansince84 wrote:
My opinion on the +/- stat is that I would guess a lot of that came in time where KD missed games. Steph played over 600 more minutes than KD that year. I also think the whole 'KD carried Steph' narrative is there but not really a popular one. If I had to guess I think its more widely viewed that Steph was the primary player on those teams with maybe 10-20% saying it was KD and probably half saying it was even. My other thing is that I'm not that sold on the whole idea of +/- as a great metric. Its ok. Its just one of many that I think should be used though. There's a lot of stuff that can play into it. I also did a post above on how I view KD from 17-19 which gives my views on why I think KD is slightly underrated now.
Okay, but let's note something here:
In '16-17, Durant played 2592 minutes total, and this led him to be 4th on the team (and in the league) in +/-.
In '17-18, Curry played 2172 minutes total, and this led him to be 1st on the team (and in the league) in +/-.
This goes along with what has already been mentioned that in '16-17 the team played better with Curry on the court than Durant despite the fact Durant got the benefit of playing a considerably larger fraction of his minutes with Curry than vice versa.
Re: KD carried Steph narrative not really popular. I mean, KD may get the vote here over Curry. If you thought Curry was the more valuable player on that team, I honestly don't know how you could possibly vote for KD over Curry. How on earth can you side with a guy who gave up on his own team only to be a sidekick on an existing champion over the guy he was the sidekick too? I really have to conclude that you buy that Durant was just always the better player (not a sidekick in any way, shape, or form) and just happened to not have more team success than Curry before or during their time together.
Re: A lot of stuff can play into +/-. There are myriad more reliable stats based on +/- that you can look at. If you find something that's more reliable that in this family of stats that favors Durant you should mention it. Short of that, I'd say you just have to accept that based on whose presence correlates more with winning basketball, it's Curry, and you have to make pro-Durant arguments based on some notion of playoff superiority.
I think you are really getting way too hung up on narratives tbh. No sidekick does the playoff damage KD did from 2017-2019, and very few players on this planet could have stepped in with the type of playoff production he did during his tenure there. When shots weren't falling who did the Warriors turn to? It was KD.
Leaving Westbrook was the best decision he ever made. If you want to base your argument on him "quitting" after giving OKC almost a decade's worth of service, then I don't know what to tell you.
I think you're getting too hung up on labels if you read all that and are focused on whether or not Durant fits the definition of a "sidekick". Who do you think was more valuable for those Warriors, Durant or Curry? If you say Durant, we've got a ton of +/- to show you. If you say Curry, and still vote for Durant, what are you doing?
Re: decade's worth of service. I'll say first that I hold Durant's behavior in GS FAR more against him than anything pertaining to OKC. His behavior in GS is utterly damning to me and I really think everyone just needs to imagine what it would be like if these were your co-workers if they don't understand why I see it as a big deal.
What about leaving OKC? It's significant as follows:
1. OKC was the team built around Durant, GS was the team built around Curry. The team built around Curry end up better. Why was that? Forget about answer luck or blame for a second, just ask why that was.
2. It had to do with OKC choosing to give Westbrook as much control as they did, which to me was a mistake on the part of Presti/Brooks for which Durant should not be blamed.
3. However, Durant had literally ALL of the power and was clearly gritting his teeth as Westbrook made bone-headed plays and he himself often got rendered passive, and what did he do? He tried to be the choir boy. He mocked others who changed teams.
4. Then the facade started slipping. He started yelling at the media in a bizarre fashion. He did this especially whenever anyone asked "So does it bother you that your team's offense is basically just you & Russ winging it?" He kept insisting everything was fine, and the Thunder kept building around Westbrook-Durant without forcing the offense to run in a more professional way.
5. And then poof, Durant left. He went from saying everything was fine for years, to leaving and saying things to indicate that no, in fact, not everything was fine, at a point when it was too late for his original team to save the situation. Blame the front office and coach for not doing a better job to be sure, but KD was telling them everything was fine. How can a front office tell Westbrook "Listen to the coach or else" when Durant is telling them and the world that he's happy playing with Westbrook?
That is much of the how and the why as to why the Thunder ended up splintering apart. Yes they shouldn't have let Harden go, but the fundamental issue involved Westbrook-Durant's messy relationship.
We get frustrated when LeBron tells his franchises what to do, but at this point as we look back, LeBron's been pretty consistent. He doesn't hesitate to say when he's concerned for his team's future, and he leaves when he decides that future isn't one he wants to be part of. LeBron would not have tolerated a teammate improvising with mediocre BBIQ like Westbrook was, and Westbrook would have either been re-shaped into something else, or he'd be gone, or eventually LeBron would be gone, but it wouldn't be a mystery.
Of course as I say this, there's the matter that these guys play different roles.
LeBron wouldn't have to worry about Westbrook being like this in the first place because you'd never try to make Westbrook an on-ball player if LeBron was already on the team.
Durant from the very beginning has been an individually focused player whose main form of basketball expertise involves a one-on-one chess match. Because of this along with his height, he's needed to play with guards who are the primary ballhandlers, and he's at their mercy to some degree.
What all this means is that the comparison of player circumstances isn't an apple-to-apple comparison, and so one guy may deal with a particular teammate better for reasons that have nothing to do with personality or emotional maturity but simply better basketball fit. Nevertheless, Durant's been in the situations he's been in, and to my mind he should be seen as one of the more problematic-to-culture superstars we've had based on the whirling, escalating tornado of neuroticism he has going on in his brain.
