Pumpkinhead said:

---

jeffdjohnson said:

---

This is by far the least I have watched the NBA playoffs that I can remember. I think overall the ratings have been fine so maybe the NBA doesn't care. I'll be curious if the ratings stay good next year assuming GSW finishes off the sweep.

Durant's argument that he only affected "one team" is only a half truth. It's not just that he took out one contender, it is that he created a juggernaut powerful enough to dismiss multiple contenders. GSW is a dominant enough team that even very good teams like SAS or HOU don't have a realistic chance. Short of injuries or ego, I don't see how GSW fades until 2020.

---

I think we can at least all agree that the 'competitive imbalance' in the Eastern Conference (technically half of the NBA) has zero to do with Durant's decision. The Eastern Conference Finals were just as 'meh' this season as the West...and the Cavs skated through the East playoffs 12-1 before hitting reality with the Warriors. The last 7 years the representative from the East in the NBA Finals has been LeBron and whatever uniform he happens to be wearing that season.

---

Yep. And it's hard to envision that changing anytime soon. The Celtics have some nice pieces in place, but even with Fultz they'll still be a couple years away from really challenging Lebron. The Bucks seem don't seem like they'll be ready next year either. Washington, Atlanta and Toronto have likely already peaked.

If it weren't for the Warriors, everyone would be asking whether the Cavs are too stacked. Lebron, Irving, Love, and Korver is loaded compared to everyone but the Spurs and Warriors.

That is an insanely talented roster with quite a few nice role players in Thompson, Williams, JR Swish, Frye, and Schumpert. And they are getting run off the court. Who knows what happens when it goes back to Cleveland, but so far the Warriors appear to be too talented for Cleveland.

Lebron is the only one who consistently looks like he belongs on the court. Love has flashes but is dependent on other people getting him the ball in good spots while Irving has the talent but plays really dumb. Schumpert competes, he's the one guy who appears to be earning more minutes. Not great offensively, but he defends 10x as well as anyone but Lebron.

Of course if it was your team then you wouldn't complain, however I still think it's bad for the league from a non biased perspective.

I also think we haven't really seen the kind of dominance that GSW is doing and has potential to do for a long while. So who knows how it will effect fans and viewership. I can't think of any major sports team that was so much better than everyone that you can almost give them a championship before the year started. Not even the Jordan led Bulls were this much of a lock. The only intrigue are injuries unless a major free agent signing emerges to make another super team.

GatorAg03 said:

---

Of course if it was your team then you wouldn't complain, however I still think it's bad for the league from a non biased perspective.

I also think we haven't really seen the kind of dominance that GSW is doing and has potential to do for a long while. So who knows how it will effect fans and viewership. I can't think of any major sports team that was so much better than everyone that you can almost give them a championship before the year started. Not even the Jordan led Bulls were this much of a lock. The only intrigue are injuries unless a major free agent signing emerges to make another super team.

---

This. Of course if it was your team, you wouldn't be *****ing. As it stands, the Rockets should just trade Harden for young guys and wait a couple years for the super team to break up. No way we are beating GS with this core intact.

Interesting Ringer article on Durant and how playing with the Warriors seems to be bringing the best out of him not only offensively but defensively.

https://theringer.com/nba-finals-kevin-durant-playing-center-4a5c1e4e31f5

Quote:

---

Durant has never been named to an All-Defensive team over his 10 years in the league. Watching Game 2, you'd think he'd won Defensive Player of the Year in every one of them. "I learned so much from [Draymond] throughout the season," Durant said postgame. "I'm just trying to play hard, man. I keep saying that. Just play hard every possession."

---

Quote:

---

You can feel however you want about Durant's decision to join a 73-win team. He very well might win four consecutive championships and it might mean nothing to you. But there's no denying the pure splendor of watching a top-50 all-time player flourish in a system that heightens his talents, especially after eight years of Oklahoma City caveman ball.

Durant said he made the "100 percent correct decision" joining the Warriors; it's hard to argue with that when he's two games away from the pinnacle. Shut your eyes and you can see him hoisting the Larry O'Brien Trophy in one hand while cradling the Finals MVP trophy in the other. LeBron is still the best player on the planet, but Durant is the best player on the best team in a league where a tall, lanky shooting guard can dominate at center in the NBA Finals. The league is morphing, and Durant is reaching his apex.

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Interesting Ringer article on Durant and how playing with the Warriors seems to be bringing the best out of him not only offensively but defensively.

https://theringer.com/nba-finals-kevin-durant-playing-center-4a5c1e4e31f5

Quote:

---

Durant has never been named to an All-Defensive team over his 10 years in the league. Watching Game 2, you'd think he'd won Defensive Player of the Year in every one of them. "I learned so much from [Draymond] throughout the season," Durant said postgame. "I'm just trying to play hard, man. I keep saying that. Just play hard every possession."

---

Quote:

---

You can feel however you want about Durant's decision to join a 73-win team. He very well might win four consecutive championships and it might mean nothing to you. But there's no denying the pure splendor of watching a top-50 all-time player flourish in a system that heightens his talents, especially after eight years of Oklahoma City caveman ball.

Durant said he made the "100 percent correct decision" joining the Warriors; it's hard to argue with that when he's two games away from the pinnacle. Shut your eyes and you can see him hoisting the Larry O'Brien Trophy in one hand while cradling the Finals MVP trophy in the other. LeBron is still the best player on the planet, but Durant is the best player on the best team in a league where a tall, lanky shooting guard can dominate at center in the NBA Finals. The league is morphing, and Durant is reaching his apex.

---

---

"Scheme and players that won 73 games last year are making 2nd best player in the NBA look very good" would have been a faster way to write that article.

Simmons always gonna stick up for his boy.

I'm curious, how would posters rank the top-5 players in the NBA right now?

My list goes:

1) LeBron James
2) Kevin Durant
3) Kawhi Leonard
4) Steph Curry
5) This is where I start to struggle a little bit, with my own top candidates for the #5 slot being Westbrook, Harden, Anthony Davis, or the Greek Freak (Antetokounmpo @ Milwaukee).

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I'm curious, how would posters rank the top-5 players in the NBA right now?

My list goes:

1) LeBron James
2) Kevin Durant
3) Kawhi Leonard
4) Steph Curry
5) This is where I start to struggle a little bit, with my own top candidates for the #5 slot being Westbrook, Harden, Anthony Davis, or the Greek Freak (Antetokounmpo @ Milwaukee).

And what was the last NBA team, if folks agree that both Curry and Durant are top-5 in the NBA players, that had two of the Top-5 NBA players in their prime playing together on their roster? I guess the Shaq-Kobe Lakers of the early 2000's?

---

I'll play...

Top two are pretty obvious. I think you could make cases for a lot of guys 3-5. Just depends on what criteria you want to use.

I'd personally go:
3. Curry (ring and a couple MVPs)
4a. Westbrook
4b. Leonard

A case could be made that the Thunder had two of the top 5 in their prime last year. Almost took down the 73 game winners in 6

It gets really hard to rank them after Lebron because so much depends on the roster/system around them.

1. Lebron
2. Leonard
3. Durant
4. Curry
5. Anthony Davis
6. Chris Paul
7. Westbrook
8. Harden
9. Paul George
10. Antetekounmpo

I probably go with Leonard over Durant because Leonard is so much better defensively and I've always weighted defense pretty heavily. Durant is much improved, but he shouldn't be anywhere near making an all defense team, let alone winning back to back DPOYs.

After the Durant/Leonard pair, Curry is number four because (in spite of average defense) he warps the whole opposing defense more than anyone else. I guess Davis at number 5, but the longer he sits at 0-4 career playoff record the more the shine comes off. Chris Paul is not my favorite player at all, but he can still ball. Westbrook and Harden are close to each other as insanely gifted but outright terrible on defense and late in games. Paul George is a great two way player that somehow everyone stopped talking about. Antetekounmpo will probably be top 5 next year, he's got the perfect nickname.

grapespda2525 said:

---

I acknowledge that they have made some shrewd moves, they have developed their guys, and utilize them the right way. With that said, I must point out that the year this group won their only title it could not have been any easier. First of all, the Spurs had their number that year, but CP3 and Griffin played out of their minds and way over their heads to eliminate them. I think it was a fluke, but hey it happened. Every single opponent that golden state got to play that year was suffering from a major injury to a key contributor ( like I said this is not the warriors fault).

Fast forward to this year, the Spurs had a superior game plan in game one and were going to win until the clumsy, ugly looking oaf named Zaza made a play that was highly questionable and was dirty given his history. If Leonard was healthy, I think that would've been a 6 game series. GSW probably would've won, but I'd give SA a punchers chance. Especially because they would've had home court. My point is, I acknowledge how good the warriors are, but as a fan of an opposing team, it is extremely frustrating to see a team this good get the breaks on match ups, injuries, and they always seem to catch teams when they're down. The NBA is a crazy league. The Mavericks won 67 games one year and looked poised to win a title, but they ran into golden state the one team that could handle them. The Spurs were a #1 seed one year and lost to Memphis, a team that had their number. We have not seen GSW suffer from any bad luck. They appear to be a blessed team.

---

You must've missed 2016 playoffs completely. Injuries killed the Warriors last year - Steph, Bogut, Iggy.

I think these are clearly the top 8 (in some order) and then it drops off a good deal after that. I would have them as follows (spaces indicate separation):

1. Lebron

2. Leonard
3. Durant

4. Curry
5. Harden

6. Anthony Davis
7. Chris Paul
8. Westbrook

GatorAg03 said:

---

I completely disagree. Sure it won't be a real asterisk, but it will always be mentioned just as the jordanless Houston titles are mentioned and the Miami super team titles are mentioned. They obviously still count but there were extenuating circumstances that led to the clear path.

That's why LeBron really validated himself by winning a title last year with the Cavs far more than his Miami titles ever did.

Curry's legacy is fine as he won one before, but this run will always be talked about as the KD years where they stacked the deck, especially if a super team doesn't emerge as a challenger. I mean they are on the verge of going 16-0 and sweeping the playoffs for the first time ever. Sure GSW are geniuses and well run to be as good as they are, but they stacked the deck more than any team in major sports history and now the CBA enables their continued success.

Golden State would be better off on this front to purposefully lose a game or two just to make it seem kind of close.

---

He stacked both of these teams, got multiple all star quality level players to join, anyone he wanted the org went and got.

GatorAg03 said:

---

Durant could not win a championship with another top 8 player. Heck he couldn't win with Harden, Westbrook and Ibaka. He had to go to a team with another top 5 player and two other top 25 players to get it done.

Leonard already won a finals MVP with a fraction of that talent against the Miami super team and the #1 player in Lebron.

His defense is world's better and his offensive efficiency was off the charts these playoffs. He was even destroying Durant and his super team in Game 1 before a zaza cheap shot. Leonard is very deserving to be #2 on the list.

Had Durant stayed and gotten it done in OKC, I would likely have him #2. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from me that he has improved greatly when you are surrounded by 3 other all-stars. The warriors actually won less games since Durant showed up. Durant is a better scorer but not a better player than Leonard.

---

I am with you on this. Could not get the job done with Westbrook in his prime...could not get it done with Westbrook Harden and Ibaka.

The route he has taken makes all of his accolades from here on out less and less impressive until this team is no longer in place.

If you traded Durant for Leonard on that 2014 Spurs team then Durant would have won that title.

People saying that 'this guy couldn't get it done with another top 8 player on X team' as an argument to how good or bad an individual player is is proof positive that so many people just completely misunderstand the nature of how basketball actually works.

Exactly. He has never played on a team where he didn't have another elite superstar by his side. Heck, he has never played without an elite PG or great defender behind him (Green and Ibaka)

He is a very good player but he isn't a MJ, LeBron type where he alone makes his squad a title contending team. Kawhi is right on the precipice of being that Michael, LeBron, Kobe level of greatness that makes his team a contender.

Durant is basically a more athletic Dirk, without the heart or loyalty. People are grossly overestimating how good a 7ft jump shooter looks when surrounded by 3 other all-stars to include an elite PG and an elite defender.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Durant was an MVP and scoring champion.

He had an All-Defense 1st team PF that led the league in blocks for 4 straight years.

He had an elite PG that has averaged 25/8/7/2 over the past 7 seasons including 2 scoring titles and [probably] one MVP.

He had the 6th Man of the Year that has become an MVP candidate with more minutes on another team.

And he made the Finals once where he got smoked 4-1.

---

Holding all else equal, if you had put Kevin Durant on that Spurs team and Kawhi Leonard on that Thunder team, would the results for each team have been different? Or are things such as coaching, organization culture, and the playoff/championship experience of those around you factors in winning a title?

I wish there was a truly objective way to state the top 10 players in the league.

I'd be curious to see how some of the recent greats (MJ, Kobe, Lebron etc) would rank them.

If Durant is so clearly inferior to Kawhi Leonard, how come he outplayed Leonard and a 67-win Spurs team in the 2016 playoffs just a year ago? And don't tell me that 67-win Spurs team didn't have nobody to help Leonard beat the Thunder. That was a good Spurs team last season.

Anyways, regardless, it seems like everybody agrees that Kevin Durant is more or less at worst the 3rd best player right now in the entire world...which means he is clearly a fantastic 'superstar' level player. Despite some of the nit picking on here of his resume.

Last year I would have had Kawhi behind Durant. Kawhi passed him this year in my opinion. Plus I don't think anyone said he was far superior. Durant is my #3 player and just a bit behind Kawhi.

To be honest though, the Spurs PG delta has been the reason the Spurs haven't been a title contender the last couple years. Every good team in the league with the exception of the Spurs has elite PG play.

The 2016 semis was more about three big three being done. They couldn't hang with Adams, Brodie and Waiters.

Duncan : 6/3.8
Parker: 10.8/5.7
Manu: 6.5/2

I think it would be hard to debunk the argument that if Kevin Durant would have been on the 2014 Spurs team that they still would have won a championship and that if you had put Kawhi on the 2012 Thunder they still wouldn't have won the championship.

I firmly believe this is because of Pop, and the players that were on that Spurs team. Kawhi has benefited from being in the Spurs organization, just as many players have (think Patriots).

Here is a study that shows a causal relationship between coach and player postseason experience and winning in the postseason.

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/18-James-Tarlow-Sloan-Analyitcs-Conference-Submission-in-template_updated.pdf

The 2012 finals is a tough reference point for either side of the KD/Kawhi debate(?).

Lebron and Wade were on a mission that year. I don't think anyone was going to beat them. The Thunder were still very young and give it their best shot. Lots of close games. Just came up short.

Durant also played well in the 12 Finals. OKC had more problems with Harden choking as I recall.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Durant also played well in the 12 Finals. OKC had more problems with Harden choking as I recall.

---

Yep. KD averaged 31 ppg and shot 54% from the field. Russ had 27/6/7 and shot 43%. Harden averaged 12 ppg and shot 37%.

chris paul should not be on that list.

Westbrook > Paul

Neither should Paul George. He good but he aint any better than Kyrie Irving, Derozan, Dirk, aldridge, john wall, gordon

AggieSportsGuy said:

---

I think it would be hard to debunk the argument that if Kevin Durant would have been on the 2014 Spurs team that they still would have won a championship and that if you had put Kawhi on the 2012 Thunder they still wouldn't have won the championship.

---

It's hard to debunk because it's a pointless hypothetical, which means it's just as impossible to prove.

However, to go along with it: Replacing '12 Durant's 29-7-4 / 57% eFG with '17 Leonard's 28-8-5 59% eFG is either a wash or an improvement. Defensively, replacing '12 Durant with a reigning two-time DPoY is a huge improvement.

That series was a gentleman's sweep, but games 2-4 were single digits. Replacing the player known at the time as _urant with the only decent answer to Lebron likely tips a couple of those games to give the Thunder a 3-1 lead.

Ulrich said:

---

AggieSportsGuy said:

---

I think it would be hard to debunk the argument that if Kevin Durant would have been on the 2014 Spurs team that they still would have won a championship and that if you had put Kawhi on the 2012 Thunder they still wouldn't have won the championship.

---

It's hard to debunk because it's a pointless hypothetical, which means it's just as impossible to prove.

However, to go along with it: Replacing '12 Durant's 29-7-4 / 57% eFG with '17 Leonard's 28-8-5 59% eFG is either a wash or an improvement. Defensively, replacing '12 Durant with a reigning two-time DPoY is a huge improvement.

That series was a gentleman's sweep, but games 2-4 were single digits. Replacing the player known at the time as _urant with the only decent answer to Lebron likely tips a couple of those games to give the Thunder a 3-1 lead.

---

Your first point is fair.

But the thing that is proven is that coach and player playoff experience has a causal relationship with winning in the playoffs in the NBA. The 2014 Spurs were loaded with it, the 2012 Thunder were not.

So saying that Durant is worse than Kawhi because he didn't win the 2012 title while Kawhi won the 2014 title is not a valid argument.

By the way, you didn't say that. I think it is fair to say Kawhi is better than Durant because of Kawhi's defensive ability (although I disagree overall), but many have strongly implied the earlier claim.

AggieSportsGuy said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

AggieSportsGuy said:

---

I think it would be hard to debunk the argument that if Kevin Durant would have been on the 2014 Spurs team that they still would have won a championship and that if you had put Kawhi on the 2012 Thunder they still wouldn't have won the championship.

---

It's hard to debunk because it's a pointless hypothetical, which means it's just as impossible to prove.

However, to go along with it: Replacing '12 Durant's 29-7-4 / 57% eFG with '17 Leonard's 28-8-5 59% eFG is either a wash or an improvement. Defensively, replacing '12 Durant with a reigning two-time DPoY is a huge improvement.

That series was a gentleman's sweep, but games 2-4 were single digits. Replacing the player known at the time as _urant with the only decent answer to Lebron likely tips a couple of those games to give the Thunder a 3-1 lead.

---

Your first point is fair.

But the thing that is proven is that coach and player playoff experience has a causal relationship with winning in the playoffs in the NBA. The 2014 Spurs were loaded with it, the 2012 Thunder were not.

So saying that Durant is worse than Kawhi because he didn't win the 2012 title while Kawhi won the 2014 title is not a valid argument.

---

I think the argument is less about comparing '12 to '14 and more that Durant is probably nearing the end of his peak and never got it done (unless he does it by joining a 73 win superteam) while Kawhi has a finals MVP and title that was anything but a superteam.

But the title count argument is bad even when careers are over, and when one player is just entering his peak and we're talking about who is better today it fades to irrelevance, so in that sense I agree with you.

I watch them play today and think that while Durant is a better scorer, Leonard is a better all-around player. The gap is very small, I almost went 2a and 2b but I don't like doing that.

Also, someone take a picture. Two people just disagreed on the basketball board without hurt feelings or insults.

Read an article where it is estimated that it will cost Golden State approximately 1.3 BILLION dollars to keep their 4 All-Stars together for 4 more years. That would be the approximate cost of supermax contracts for Durant and Curry plus max contracts for Green and Thompson.

The article said that Golden State may be willing to pay that price though, due to huge revenues coming in (including from their new Arena) and them banking on the Warriors brand growth and so forth over the next few years that comes from being the dominant team in the NBA making the billion plus price tag still worth it.