2017-2018 NBA discussion thread

Discussion in 'BS Forum' started by Jonathan_Vilma, Sep 23, 2017.

  1. JetBlue

    JetBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    2,952
    No one has ever doubted that, but great players arent judged solely on how they play but by being the catalyst of a winning team which Durant is clearly not.

    Ovechkin is the prime example of a great player who will be celebrated (anticipating that they close out the series). After a decade of playoff disappointment, if they win it will be validation of his greatness. But think about if Ovechkin would have jumped ship to the Penguins this season and they won third straight Cup. He could have scored 30 playoff goals and nobody would be saying the Pens won because of him.
     
  2. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    22,161
    Likes Received:
    4,356
    Yeah, I completely understand and agree, from that standpoint. I thought it was ridiculous when he signed with the Warriors too. He is a Top 5 player, many would say Top 2, so joining a team that is already great did not seem fair. What has impressed me is he took over the team in last year's Finals and did it again yesterday. Last night he was by far the best player on the basketball court, and that court had Lebron and Curry on it. I give credit when it is due.

    He did hurt his legacy though. I remember for many years people thought he would sign with the Wizards. If he did, he would have had a legitimate chance of at least reaching the Finals, and maybe winning it. Staying in OKC he would have had a legitimate chance of winning too. So I get holding it against him for joining a super team but he earned his ring last year and his likely ring this year.
     
  3. 101GangGreen101

    101GangGreen101 2018 Thread of the Year Award Winner

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2008
    Messages:
    18,626
    Likes Received:
    8,159
    Well said. He's no Ovechkin, who even in the darkest of moments of his career never gave up and stuck by his team. Durant bolted the min things got rough, that will absolutely hurt his legacy when it's all said and done. Durant will go down as one of the greatest scorers, but IMO he won't sniff the top 50 in terms of most competitive NBA players ever to play the game.

    Ovechkin winning with Capitals would be like winning 3 titles with the Penguins.
     
    JetBlue likes this.
  4. 101GangGreen101

    101GangGreen101 2018 Thread of the Year Award Winner

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2008
    Messages:
    18,626
    Likes Received:
    8,159
    Durant took the easy way out. Thunder was 1 game away from beating the Warriors 2 years ago and he just bolted. When Durant retires, he will always be one of the greatest scorers, but one of the greatest players? errrr ...
     
    The Dark Knight likes this.
  5. BrowningNagle

    BrowningNagle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,593
    Likes Received:
    8,760
    Durant sure looked like the catalyst last night.

    I understand you hate the dude but give credit where its due. Pretty boy Curry looked like shit, Thompson was MIA. That's a convincing victory for the Cavs and maybe they make a series of it. But instead Durant dominated and now the series is over. I know catalyst is a cliche but it sure seems like that qualifies
     
    The Dark Knight likes this.
  6. matt robinson 17

    matt robinson 17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    12,327
    Likes Received:
    4,869
    Rinse and repeat, every year, year after year......boring
     
    101GangGreen101 likes this.
  7. JetBlue

    JetBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    2,952
    Durant is the best player on that team; that doesn’t equate to the Warriors needing him to win. We have empirical evidence that has shown that the Warriors did not need him to win. Being the best player on a winning team does not equate to being the reason why they win.

    Curry having one bad game, within the current construct of the team, doesn’t negate the empirical evidence we have that the Warriors were a championship team without him. They were favored to win the title before he signed. To attribute the Warriors overall success to Durant simply because he’s their best player, you have to argue the team, as constructed without him, would have fallen from the championship level they were at without him and thus they needed him to remain at that level. It’s anecdotal but nobody believed they were on the decline after winning 73 games so I’m not sure you can argue their continued success is because of Durant. Curry having a bad game doesn’t mean he’s a player on decline and Durant has picked up his slack and thus is the reason they have maintained their success.
     
  8. JetBlue

    JetBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    2,952
    I’m of the opposite mind. I think dynasties are good for sports and having great teams generate greater emotion and interest, as fans want to root for or against them, than teams that fans are indifferent about. Dynasties create the stories that engage fans and viewers.
     
    matt robinson 17 likes this.
  9. BrowningNagle

    BrowningNagle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,593
    Likes Received:
    8,760
    does not make much sense to argue he is the best player on the team and then also argue they don't need him. If he's the best player on the team- they obviously need him
     
  10. JackBower

    JackBower Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    38
    Not necessarily.

    They won over 70 games without him. He went to a sure thing, and his greatest competition.. that is why he's considered a bitch
     
  11. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    22,161
    Likes Received:
    4,356
    It can be both. He can be one of the greatest players (because he is) and also took the easy way out (because he did).

    @JetBlue You seem to admit he is the best player on the Warriors, so wouldn't joining an 73 win team who went to back to back NBA Finals and instantly becoming their best player be an impressive feat? It is to me.

    I still get the argument of being the face, carrying the team, and the pressure it puts on a player. KD decided to avoid that by joining the Warriors. It will rightfully be held against him by fans.
     
  12. JetBlue

    JetBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    2,952
    Those two absolutely aren’t correlated.
     
  13. JetBlue

    JetBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    2,952
    No, because he is the second best player in the NBA and would be no matter what team he was on. That’s a discussion of his ability not his impact on the team’s success. In fact, the team’s win total has declined since he got there; if he was such a difference maker wouldn’t we have some empirical statistic to show they actually got better with him on the team?
     
    The Dark Knight likes this.
  14. BrowningNagle

    BrowningNagle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,593
    Likes Received:
    8,760
    they are about to win back to back championships with him. They only had 1 title before he got there. There is your empirical statistic
     
    The Dark Knight likes this.
  15. JetBlue

    JetBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    2,952
    That’s not empirical data. By your logic of simply resorting to title quantity, if the Warriors had won five titles in a row without him, then won six titles in a row with him, it would be empirical proof they needed him to win simply because they had one additional title with him. Of course to draw that conclusion you would have to ignore that one extra title was simply a result of having one additional season with him than they had previous to him.

    The fact is each season is an isolated sample. And the samples of the Warriors seasons show the team was empirically capable of winning without him; that doesn’t get negated just because they then continued to win with him regardless of how many additional titles they win with him.
     
  16. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    22,161
    Likes Received:
    4,356
    Their is.
    2016: Warriors (3-4) vs. Cavaliers in NBA Finals
    2017 and 2018: Warriors (7-1) vs Cavaliers in NBA Finals.

    Would you really argue regular season wins over NBA Finals wins? No, because that is crazy. The main argument you are making is the Warriors could do this without him, but we don't know how they would have done in 2017 or this year and never will. He has made a big impact. And again, even though I am defending him, he had to expect fans to react like many have against him signing with Golden State. So he brought this hate on himself.
     
  17. Antoni

    Antoni Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,971
    Likes Received:
    257
    Lue will win like 20 games next year if LeBron leaves and will be fired. Actually all of LeBron's coaches have been real bad. I guess the best one he's had is Spo, who has pretty much coached .500 ball since LeBron left.
     
  18. JetBlue

    JetBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    2,952
    That doesn’t show they were better with him per se as there is one factor to those records you are ignoring — Cleveland is clearly not as good this season as previous seasons. The Warriors playoff record last season is a better argument than simply looking at these past two finals.

    Beyond that, I shouldnt have argued he hasn’t made them better. Durant makes the Warriors more difficult from a match up stand point and thus inherently makes them better. Durant would make any team he is on better. My argument should have stayed at my initial position —being a better championship team does not make him necessary for them to be a championship team. And that’s what he made them — a better championship team which means they were already a championship team before him. I don’t think you can isolate his contribution to be any significant reason for their success when they had proven to be great without him.

    The history of sports is filled with new players going to existing championship teams and even contributing significantly. But when you go to a championship team you don’t get the credit for making them a championship team and that’s how the great players who have won are judged.
     
    The Dark Knight likes this.
  19. BrowningNagle

    BrowningNagle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,593
    Likes Received:
    8,760
    exactly. I don't think they would've done this without him. It's extremely difficult to go back to back. Conversely plenty of teams have won a title and then flamed out. I don't think they would've beaten Houston this year without him this year. Solid chance the Cavs could've beaten them last year, hell Durant was the MVP of the series.

    Then the Warriors are just an outstanding regular season team with only 1 title. Instead they are a dynasty. Kevin Durant takes the team to a new level
     
    The Dark Knight likes this.
  20. JackBower

    JackBower Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    38
    I find it hard to believe:

    KD isn't the 2nd best player in the nba, with a wide gap to #3.

    Warriors weren't one of the best teams ever before he got there.

    He didn't take the easy path to a championship, one most elite competitors wouldn't even consider.
     
    #420 JackBower, Jun 7, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2018

Share This Page