There are no accolades. No stats. Only basketball. Who is better than KD?

[Kblaze8855]

Straight up better in your mind. Give me your “No question. ____ is better.” list prime vs prime.



Also....it’s KDs birthday. He sure is insecure....but he’s better at basketball than he is at being annoying with his insecurities. And he is REALLY good at annoying you with his insecurities.

Emotions aside...he’s one of a kind.




https://youtu.be/8IlqtwhEGdY



https://youtu.be/7mu8fXaDvWU

[Kblaze8855]

By the way I had to play that and several other David Ruffin songs when it came to mind. He’s kinda the KD of singers.

There might be nobody better....but he also broke up the temptations with his ego. Before he left he brought them to GOAT status though.



https://youtu.be/H7wbFMznJNo

[Vino24]

LeBron. Impact. We know this because he went to the finals with boobie Gibson as a second option

[Kblaze8855]

Can’t you picture KD thinking “Aint nobody coming to see you Dray” even if he didn’t have the balls to say it?



https://youtu.be/8wNj3xSMEUM

[Kblaze8855]

KD snatches the finals MVP from Steph after he did the hard work of building a winning culture:



https://youtu.be/DWnWXx5sNdA

[FKAri]

Call me crazy but I think in his prime Michael Jordan was better.

[dankok8]

Which guys are better at basketball than KD? It's hard to answer given the different positions, eras and style of play but here are the 11 guys I would take over him EASILY. Has nothing to do with accolades. I just think they are better basketball players. Hakeem accomplished equal amount or less for instance but I think he gives me a better chance to win rings with equally talented rosters than KD. And the name of the game is winning rings.

Jordan
Kareem
Russell
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Lebron
Kobe

Then there are lots of players that would give me pause and I might or might not might take them over KD:

Moses
Dr J
Garnett
Dirk
Oscar
West
Curry

Basically the first list I'm sure about and the second list I'd have to sort it out in my mind or I can see myself taking KD in some situations. It's close either way for the second list.

[tpols]

Plenty of players... leadership is part of basketball. And so is physical and mental toughness.

[starface]

Gonna give OP the benefit of the doubt he meant to but honestly forgot to include “Besides Lebron” in his thread title.

I would take care to see that doesnt happen again OP.

[SouBeachTalents]

The problem with Durant is it's always going to be difficult to grade him against his peers that were close in ability like Kobe, Wade & Kawhi, who managed to lead teams to titles without needing to jump ship to a team coming off a title, b2b finals & 73 wins. I honestly don't think Durant is winning titles in those players place during their FMVP runs (with the obvious exception of Kawhi's first)

[light]

LeBron is better than KD at everything. Even scoring.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

I would say Kawhi because he's a shorter Durant but with better defense and better rebounder.

[ArbitraryWater]

The same guys that are better on any current all time list

[HBK_Kliq_2]

The problem with Durant is it's always going to be difficult to grade him against his peers that were close in ability like Kobe, Wade & Kawhi, who managed to lead teams to titles without needing to jump ship to a team coming off a title, b2b finals & 73 wins. I honestly don't think Durant is winning titles in those players place during their FMVP runs (with the obvious exception of Kawhi's first)

I agree but Durant has a chance to challenge that argument if he wins a ring with Nets.

It really depends on how high you are on Westbrook because he was Durant's wingman his entire thunder run. Do you think other all-time greats could have won a ring in Durant's place during his thunder run? That's what it comes down too.

[Micku]

LeBron
Shaq
Hakeem
MJ
Magic
Tim Duncan
Kareem
Kobe
Wilt

I would say Bird too because of the passing and rebounding and his impact.

And there are other players who will give me pause and I have to stop and think if I would want KD over them or not.

I don't know what is a great comparison for KD of what I think of him. Like he is obviously great, but I don't think he is like the GOAT or anything. He has all the tools, but is missing a few things. Like even though he is a David Ruffin, he isn't a Michael Jackson. Unsure if he's even a Prince. Maybe, but I guess it depends on who you compare him to. He probably could be a Marvin Gaye.

To me, he is more like a Easy E or something. While the main guy is a Tupac or Biggie. Or even later with Eminem. He ain't that.

With comedians probably, he is more like a Chris Rock. He is no George Carlin, Richard Pyor, Eddie Murphy or Dave Chappelle. These guys revolutionize, change the game, inspired ppl. KD ain't that, but everyone considers him to be great and dangerous. And he is. He's definitely up there for sure. Very unique. But bottom line, he ain't the GOAT to me. Even with the basketball and not stats. Like he is amazing and got all the potential. Obviously one of the best scorers we ever seen. Almost no weakness. But he ain't the best. Someone with more weakness utilize their strengths much better. And he isn't a MJ with a crazy ass mentality to utilize the best of his atheltics/skillset. He isn't a LeBron who crazy smart, crazy athletic, and one of the best impacts of the game. Despite KD having less weaknesses on the floor in terms of scoring ability, he doesn't have the impact that LeBron has.

But he has a chance to combat my current mindset of him with the Nets next year. It's tough coming back from that type of injury he suffered, but we'll see.

[Stephonit]

There is one overriding reason KD got a lot of flak for joining the Warriors—he joined Curry.

[SouBeachTalents]

I agree but Durant has a chance to challenge that argument if he wins a ring with Nets.

It really depends on how high you are on Westbrook because he was Durant's wingman his entire thunder run. Do you think other all-time greats could have won a ring in Durant's place during his thunder run? That's what it comes down too.
To me it's not even about winning titles. There's no season in OKC that jumps out to me where I think the guys I mentioned are guaranteed to win a ring. I'm much more confident though that they would've played better than Durant did during several games & series in '13, '14 & '16, which is what's much more important to me. Outside of 2012 Durant would typically underperform for his standards in the playoffs, with his efficiency usually cratering

[Phoenix]

Which guys are better at basketball than KD? It's hard to answer given the different positions, eras and style of play but here are the 11 guys I would take over him EASILY. Has nothing to do with accolades. I just think they are better basketball players. Hakeem accomplished equal amount or less for instance but I think he gives me a better chance to win rings with equally talented rosters than KD.

For all of KDs GOAT level talent we have no evidence as of now that he can actually led a team to a title without the caliber of players running with him on those Warriors squads. And that's not to say he couldn't win with lesser talent, but until and unless he does we can only look at the available data.

[Micku]

To me it's not even about winning titles. There's no season in OKC that jumps out to me where I think the guys I mentioned are guaranteed to win a ring. I'm much more confident though that they would've played better than Durant did during several games & series in '13, '14 & '16, which is what's much more important to me. Outside of 2012 Durant would typically underperform for his standards in the playoffs, with his efficiency usually cratering

This is pretty much what I think.

[MaxPlayer]

There is one overriding reason KD got a lot of flak for joining the Warriors—he joined Curry.

I'm pretty sure it had more to do with joining a 73-win team that had just knocked him out in the WCF.

[Phoenix]

I agree but Durant has a chance to challenge that argument if he wins a ring with Nets.

It really depends on how high you are on Westbrook because he was Durant's wingman his entire thunder run. Do you think other all-time greats could have won a ring in Durant's place during his thunder run? That's what it comes down too.

You need to look at how Durant finished the 2016 season and how he finished the 2017 and 2018 seasons. From blowing a 3-1 lead and coming up small at the end to looking right down the barrel at Lebron over the next 2 seasons, not faltering under the pressure of the moment. Now there is a point where you can say he just got better under pressure, but where do you draw the line between that and its alot easier to play his game when he's got Curry and Klay on either wing giving him a considerably larger margin of individual error compared to his OKC years.

[Stephonit]

I'm pretty sure it had more to do with joining a 73-win team that had just knocked him out in the WCF.

No it was because he joined Curry. If it was a trade that saw the Warriors and Thunder swapping Curry and Durant the rest of the league would have moved on from it pretty quickly.

[Carbine]

I'd say 5 for sure. He went head to head and outplayed LeBron in two finals, this shows you the type of special talent he is when he is "right"

[starface]

If you could implant an alpha mentality into any player's body/skill set, then it's definitely possible you take Durant.

But taking the entire package into account?

I'm not that impressed by Durant's package.

[dreamshake]

Kobe, Jordan, Bird and maybe Kawhi. That’s it.

[warriorfan]

If you could implant an alpha mentality into any player's body/skill set, then it's definitely possible you take Durant.

But taking the entire package into account?

I'm not that impressed by Durant's package.

They don’t call him the Slim Peeper for nothing.

[Stephonit]

There are certain aspects to Durant's game one could legitimately criticize, his mental toughness though is not really one of them. It's interesting to see people invent things to justify their biases.

[Vino24]

He has a tattoo of Tupac on his thigh. What is worse than that?

[kawhileonard2]

Only Kawhi in this era is better than KD.

[WhiteKyrie]

Jordan, Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Curry are the only ones I can say for certain, perimeter wise. Maybe Leonard. Maybe.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Purely at scoring? No one. Maybe Michael. Overall? Probably 20+ players. Dude is a meh ballhandler and passer. Pretty much anybody he is ever compared to is better at those two things.

[hold this L]

Lebron and Curry, easily. Until I see him win something on his own, then it'll be a different story. Quite a few players in other eras as well.

[Gudo]

Just pickup games, no seasons or playoffs? Not a lot, I would say MJ or kobe.

[Gohan]

Easy no stats, no accolades? Give me iverson, curry, shaq, Jordan, and Kobe

[HBK_Kliq_2]

To me it's not even about winning titles. There's no season in OKC that jumps out to me where I think the guys I mentioned are guaranteed to win a ring. I'm much more confident though that they would've played better than Durant did during several games & series in '13, '14 & '16, which is what's much more important to me. Outside of 2012 Durant would typically underperform for his standards in the playoffs, with his efficiency usually cratering

And Kawhi still averaged 28 points on 59% TS with 9 rebounds 6 assists and a 9 BPM. That's easily better then any Durant thunder playoff run outside of maybe 2012. Plus kawhi outplayed and eliminated all nba 1st team Luka.

[imdaman99]

Lebron and Curry, easily. Until I see him win something on his own, then it'll be a different story. Quite a few players in other eras as well.

What do you mean on his own? Nobody won it on their own. Even Dirk in 2011 had some great help. Hakeem in 94 is as close to a carry job I can imagine, and he got plenty of big time plays from his role players. Curry never won it on his own, since when did Klay and Dray not to mention Iggy not matter?

[Shooter]

What do you mean on his own? Nobody won it on their own. Even Dirk in 2011 had some great help. Hakeem in 94 is as close to a carry job I can imagine, and he got plenty of big time plays from his role players. Curry never won it on his own, since when did Klay and Dray not to mention Iggy not matter?

Oh come on man, Durant won a chip with 73 win team and former MVP. He joined the team that literally beat him one year prior!

[LAL]

Kobe/KD/MJ. Kobe same height less athletic but could do anything MJ could with more tricks and skills going up against taller defenders, sf's and zone defenses, mentality and iq of the highest level. Mj was ahead of his time backing down smaller shooting guards on an island because of illegal defense rule. MJ still goat because of legendary career, accolades and ability. KD is like a 7 foot larry bird with worse passing and better defense.

[Gougou]

Lebron, Jordan and Shaq.

[hold this L]

What do you mean on his own? Nobody won it on their own. Even Dirk in 2011 had some great help. Hakeem in 94 is as close to a carry job I can imagine, and he got plenty of big time plays from his role players. Curry never won it on his own, since when did Klay and Dray not to mention Iggy not matter?

Unless you're playing dumb, you know exactly what I mean.

[MaxPlayer]

Purely at scoring? No one. Maybe Michael. Overall? Probably 20+ players. Dude is a meh ballhandler and passer. Pretty much anybody he is ever compared to is better at those two things.

Yeah I agree with this. There's one part of Durant's game (mid-range shooting) that's super-super elite, in large part because his high natural release means he has no worry of his shot being blocked.

Outside that, he's merely a good player.

[Shogon]

Eye test only and even winning games and championships don't matter?

It really depends on what you mean by this. Are we talking at their absolute peak game? Peak season? Prime? Entire career? What? I honestly don't know, you have to be more specific.

Which KD did from a visual eye test standpoint during his absolute peak year is hard to match. I can't even remember which year it was, but holy shit he was lighting it up. Was it his MVP year? I honestly don't remember, but damn does time fly. I just remember there was a season where he was scoring seemingly at will and I think dropping game winners to boot.

Anyways...

If we're talking from a visual standpoint at their absolute peak years?

Steph Curry, Shaq, MJ, Kobe are the over the top obvious ones in my basketball viewing lifetime.

The thing about JUST the eye test though is that it can be misleading whether you want to accept that or not. A player's aesthetics and reputation on the floor do not necessarily translate to how effective they really are. Their reputation does not always reflect reality. Using Kobe as an example... he had this reputation that it was almost a guarantee that he was going to hit the big shot and close a game out if you gave him the ball in the closing moments of a close game... but the stats don't suggest that. No matter how you slice the stats, objectively speaking, he was not this ruthless win you the game no matter what guy. It just appeared that way because he hit a LOT of game winning shots and helped close out a lot of games. But he also missed a **** TON OF SHOTS... in the clutch. More than he made. People aren't ruthless calculators and they tend to remember the eye popping jaw dropping amazing moments more than they do anything else. And by QUANTITY, Kobe made a shit ton of game winners. But in reality he was no more effective in the clutch than he was the rest of the game. In fact, he was probably worse. But that's certainly not how it feels, does it? Not if you remember back to what everyone said for YEARS and probably still say.

The point is you need a combination of the eye test and stats. You need to visually evaluate what a player is doing for the 35-45 minutes a game he isn't touching the ball and how that impacts a defense or offense. We are not yet at the point as a species where we have the ability to articulate, in numbers, a player's precise effectiveness. Basketball will probably fade out before we're that evolved. But numbers themselves don't lie... but they also, at present day, omit a **** TON of context. This is why you need both the eye test and stats, otherwise you come up short in your ability to evaluate.

[Carbine]

Steph Curry?

He went to Stephs team and was clearly the best player on the squad from Day 1.

We saw Curry go against LeBron for pretty much Currys entire prime/peak years. They shared the floor in a bunch of finals. It was obvious in every single one that LeBron as a player was a tier and most likely a couple tiers above Curry. Just at playing basketball.

[Shogon]

Steph Curry?

He went to Stephs team and was clearly the best player on the squad from Day 1.

We saw Curry go against LeBron for pretty much Currys entire prime/peak years. They shared the floor in a bunch of finals. It was obvious in every single one that LeBron as a player was a tier and most likely a couple tiers above Curry. Just at playing basketball.

He was the best individual player. He was not the best player. Basketball isn't 1 on 1. Curry in 2015 was better than anything KD has ever done.

[Shogon]

And see here is where we get into this really uncertain territory and I ask the same question I've asked people dozens of times over the years and nobody has ever had a satisfactory answer.

What does 'better' or 'best' really even mean? Sometimes it's obvious, right? Like to make a blanket statement that Kevin Durant was better than Jeff Hornacek isn't really controversial.

But when you start comparing players that are closer and at a clearly truly all time great level, how can you truly compare them?

What does better even truly mean?

Is it based on how they would do 1 on 1?

Is it based on how they elevate a sub par team?

Is it based on how they elevate a par level team?

Is it based on how they elevate an elite level team?

Is it based on how they fit with ALL types of teams?

Is it some combination? Is it something else?

Note: the answer for these questions is definitely NOT always the same person. If you were to break it down by the 2020 NBA season only, you would get AT LEAST three different guys you came up with if you answered these questions honestly.

Nobody can ever answer these questions honestly and they always go ignored. "Best" and "better" are largely subjective and when you get into comparing players at the top of the sport throughout history, you start splitting hairs and the truth is... objectively speaking... rather unknowable. C'est la vie.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled idiocy.

[LAL]

Eye test only and even winning games and championships don't matter?

It really depends on what you mean by this. Are we talking at their absolute peak game? Peak season? Prime? Entire career? What? I honestly don't know, you have to be more specific.

Which KD did from a visual eye test standpoint during his absolute peak year is hard to match. I can't even remember which year it was, but holy shit he was lighting it up. Was it his MVP year? I honestly don't remember, but damn does time fly. I just remember there was a season where he was scoring seemingly at will and I think dropping game winners to boot.

Anyways...

If we're talking from a visual standpoint at their absolute peak years?

Steph Curry, Shaq, MJ, Kobe are the over the top obvious ones in my basketball viewing lifetime.

The thing about JUST the eye test though is that it can be misleading whether you want to accept that or not. A player's aesthetics and reputation on the floor do not necessarily translate to how effective they really are. Their reputation does not always reflect reality. Using Kobe as an example... he had this reputation that it was almost a guarantee that he was going to hit the big shot and close a game out if you gave him the ball in the closing moments of a close game... but the stats don't suggest that. No matter how you slice the stats, objectively speaking, he was not this ruthless win you the game no matter what guy. It just appeared that way because he hit a LOT of game winning shots and helped close out a lot of games. But he also missed a **** TON OF SHOTS... in the clutch. More than he made. People aren't ruthless calculators and they tend to remember the eye popping jaw dropping amazing moments more than they do anything else. And by QUANTITY, Kobe made a shit ton of game winners. But in reality he was no more effective in the clutch than he was the rest of the game. In fact, he was probably worse. But that's certainly not how it feels, does it? Not if you remember back to what everyone said for YEARS and probably still say.

The point is you need a combination of the eye test and stats. You need to visually evaluate what a player is doing for the 35-45 minutes a game he isn't touching the ball and how that impacts a defense or offense. We are not yet at the point as a species where we have the ability to articulate, in numbers, a player's precise effectiveness. Basketball will probably fade out before we're that evolved. But numbers themselves don't lie... but they also, at present day, omit a **** TON of context. This is why you need both the eye test and stats, otherwise you come up short in your ability to evaluate.

Whatever buzzer beater stats might tell you about Kobe, he more than made up for it by his years of making shots in the last 5 minutes of games, it seemed almost every game he would bring his team back with clutch shots, it was ridiculous.

[Shogon]

Whatever buzzer beater stats might tell you about Kobe, he more than made up for it by his years of making shots in the last 5 minutes of games, it seemed almost every game he would bring his team back with clutch shots, it was ridiculous.

Yeah, and you didn't refute a single thing I said in my post. In fact, if you read my post carefully, and re-read what you typed carefully, what you're saying supports what I said 100%.

[LAL]

Yeah, and you didn't refute a single thing I said in my post. In fact, if you read my post carefully, and re-read what you typed carefully, what you're saying supports what I said 100%.

I did read it, it seemed contradictory to me and confused me.

[LAL]

my grammar is so bad

[Gudo]

my grammar is so bad

Lol it happensp

[LAL]

Lol it happensp

:cheers:

[CelticBaller]

no one could beat KD in a 1on1 if he gets the ball first

[Carbine]

He was the best individual player. He was not the best player. Basketball isn't 1 on 1. Curry in 2015 was better than anything KD has ever done.

I don't agree with the last statement. Regular season sure, but the playoffs are what matters and while he played excellent overall on offense (but nothing earth shatterin) he did play under expectations in the finals. He wasn't the FMVP.

Durant in '17 was just better from my view. His defensive ability was a huge plus, he was as efficient of a 28ppg scorer in the playoffs as anyone ever and he outplayed this eras GOAT on the biggest stage on his way to FMVP. As a basketball player, it really doesn't get better than '17 Durant besides a couple players.

[EllEffEll]

Define 'better' as it applies here. That is something ISH can not seem to come to any sort of consensus on.

I guess my knock on KD is that when he was THE MAN, he could never put his team on his back to get HIS team over the hump. The ultimate goal is to win the championship. Period. He had a decent cast to work with, but was never that guy that put his team on his shoulders and carried them. He was at his best when he had Steph, Dray, and Klay to take the defensive pressure off of him that is usually applied to a team's primary offensive threat. That said, he is a uniquely special, super talented player.

[DMAVS41]

Define 'better' as it applies here. That is something ISH can not seem to come to any sort of consensus on.

I guess my knock on KD is that when he was THE MAN, he could never put his team on his back to get HIS team over the hump. The ultimate goal is to win the championship. Period. He had a decent cast to work with, but was never that guy that put his team on his shoulders and carried them. He was at his best when he had Steph, Dray, and Klay to take the defensive pressure off of him that is usually applied to a team's primary offensive threat. That said, he is a uniquely special, super talented player.

I think the reason for the bold is because the phrase "better at basketball" is often far too narrow in its scope for many posters on here. It is as if you just talk about aspects of each side of the ball (offense / defense) while playing a pickup game....and then grade them off that...and that is how good at basketball they are. While that is certainly part of it, I think it is far more broad than that when it comes to being "better at basketball"...

I like to think of players in terms of ET (Expected Titles)...meaning...how many titles would I expect to win if I drafted this player to be my franchise player given how their careers have played out in the circumstances we've witnessed. So many things will go into the calculation of course, but just zooming out on KD...

I think his ET is actually pretty low so far for his career given what we've seen.

No doubt an all-time great player, but I'm probably taking somewhere around 20 or so guys before KD, but I'm open to moving him up if he proves something going forward.

[999Guy]

I don't agree with the last statement. Regular season sure, but the playoffs are what matters and while he played excellent overall on offense (but nothing earth shatterin) he did play under expectations in the finals. He wasn't the FMVP.

Durant in '17 was just better from my view. His defensive ability was a huge plus, he was as efficient of a 28ppg scorer in the playoffs as anyone ever and he outplayed this eras GOAT on the biggest stage on his way to FMVP. As a basketball player, it really doesn't get better than '17 Durant besides a couple players.
He really wasn’t a huge plus. Durant has slow long feet and is not smart as a help defender.

He was free lance shot blocking, not closing the lane off before guys even make moves to the rim and prevent shots. Not change teams schemes. He was just a solid defensive player with the athleticism for flash.


Not unlike his offense. Absolutely worse than Curry, and even Bron, Harden and Paul offensively in 2017.

Very comparable to the shit AD is doing this playoff run. You can’t put real pressure on him because LeBron + shooters, and he’s surrounded by smarter and better defenders than him so his strengths look dominant.

Davis is no DPOY, just like Durant was, and is absolutely just a hired gun on offense, not the center of an unguardable scheme(Curry, LeBron).

[Kblaze8855]

The ultimate goal is to win the championship. Period.

Basketball is not NBA titles. Basketball is your team scoring and preventing the other team from scoring.

Thats all of it.

There were better and worse players a week after the game was invented. Players were rankable long before the NBA existed. ABA players were also playing basketball. THe euroleague is basketball. Your local gym is basketball. The same thing that makes people better than others in any of those situations makes them better in the NBA. If the NBA ended its season and had a computer decide the champion like the BCS used to in college all of the players would be exactly the same. How good they are doesnt change. Only fans perceptions largely due to a lack of information plus it not being a question with factual answers.

How many times you win ______ is a matter of too many things going right to bother even going down that road most of the time.

The extreme vast majority of such talk is filler from people just unwilling to say they cant prove their opinions. We want proof. Something definitive that makes us right and them wrong.

I understand it....but it isnt actually an evaluation of individual basketball until "Titles" go onto a scoreboard or keep the other team from adding to theirs.

That isnt to say there is nothing intangible in an evaluation of how a player helps his team play better. Almost all of it is intangible....thats why the answers are so hard to reach.

[DMAVS41]

Basketball is not NBA titles. Basketball is your team scoring and preventing the other team from scoring.

Thats all of it.

There were better and worse players a week after the game was invented. Players were rankable long before the NBA existed. ABA players were also playing basketball. THe euroleague is basketball. Your local gym is basketball. The same thing that makes people better than others in any of those situations makes them better in the NBA. If the NBA ended its season and had a computer decide the champion like the BCS used to in college all of the players would be exactly the same. How good they are doesnt change. Only fans perceptions largely due to a lack of information plus it not being a question with factual answers.

How many times you win ______ is a matter of too many things going right to bother even going down that road most of the time.

The extreme vast majority of such talk is filler from people just unwilling to say they cant prove their opinions. We want proof. Something definitive that makes us right and them wrong.

I understand it....but it isnt actually an evaluation of individual basketball until "Titles" go onto a scoreboard or keep the other team from adding to theirs.

That isnt to say there is nothing intangible in an evaluation of how a player helps his team play better. Almost all of it is intangible....thats why the answers are so hard to reach.

But so much more goes into the bold when playing basketball at the professional level compared to a local gym pickup game.

Also, the results of a game or season or career....are representations of your team trying to score and prevent the other team from scoring. How well a player performs in a variety of circumstances represents their basketball ability as well.