Fine, completely ignore the psychological side of it, I agree it can be handwavy and could all just be narrative. Whether it is based on ego or just play style or something subtle or all just coincidence, the fact remains that both LeBron and Durant have a history of clashing when paired with other stars to diminishing returns, and Curry doesn't.

I agree we look at basketball differently. I think in general, people overrate player's box score stats. Each basket made by each player belongs to the 'team' far more than to the actual player that made the basket than people allow for in my opinion, they want to just go 'Durant went 5/9 in FGs' cos it's neat and because that style worked so well in solving Baseball (where stats DO actually just 'belong' to the player far more than as a team effort).

This time last year almost noone thought Durant as better than Curry. Now it seems to be popular consensus. Why? Because, for whatever reason (I said lack of ego but it could be all sorts of things), they run the offence more through Durant than Curry and as such, his stats have been better. But I don't really care about that. Curry could (hypothetical extreme coming) not make a single bucket, if the offence still completely craters when he takes the bench (over a large enough sample) then I think he's still probably playing really well, just in ways that aren't captured in the limited box score. It might not be perfect, but things like RPM are the only real stat I value because they are going about finding out who plays well the 'right' way. Probably no coincidence RPM has Curry > Durant.

A similar thing happened with Love, Irving at Cleveland. I'm strongly of the opinion that Love is still far better than Irving. It wasn't even arguable when they started at Cleveland, but now the opposite seems to be generally accepted. But I'm of the opinion that it's only out of necessity that they run Irving as the secondary creator (ego stuff again, but if you don't like that, just making the most of Irving's limited skillset), and the fact his stats always look better don't actually make him more valuable than Love at all. I really hope Irving gets traded and they "don't get much" back, maybe younger assets or stuff for the future, because I think Love getting to be the proper 2nd wheel to LeBron could be great to watch.

Basically tl;dr, it's a team sport, and who puts it in doesn't actually matter. I'm always far more impressed by Lebron's games where he say plays 46 minutes and has +6 +/- in a loss than any huge triple double or anything. People don't account for team role anywhere near enough when evaluating players.

Sorry I sidetracked a bit there, I read back and noticed you said "Durant swap interesting but Curry ridiculous" and kinda halfway swapped between what I was arguing, from Curry v LeBron to Curry v Durant, so just take it as a generic pro Curry comment :P

Good post. Agreed with everything you said about your impact on team success being the most important. I'd argue, however, that Steph's elevation to >Durant was a short stretch that had a lot more to do with positive variance & circumstance than actual skill/value. I mean, just thinking about it logically, how can Steph actually be more valuable to a team winning than Durant? Durant is half a foot taller, and better at every aspect of basketball besides shooting. I don't wanna underrate the value of Steph's shooting, it is a huge part of what makes the Warriors go and why they're so good, but Durant is an all-time great talent- one of the best scorers of all-time while somehow being an elite perimeter defender AND rim protector. He's so so so good. So is Steph obviously. This is why it's simply unfair they're on the same team lol.

If it is Crawford that is probably a positive for the Wolves

Maybe they'll end up with Mike Dunleavy. They need to fill out their roster with wings.
Gerald Henderson is out there.

"I'd argue, however, that Steph's elevation to >Durant was a short stretch that had a lot more to do with positive variance & circumstance than actual skill/value."

Don't necessarily disagree with this, it's more the chopping and changing based on who happens to be putting up better stats while they work together to get wins that I disagree with. Maybe Durant is just better I don't know. I definitely think Curry is, for a superstar, particularly well suited to playing with other superstars, to the point that it makes him more valuable for a superteam than he might be in a vacuum (as heels argued earlier better than I could).

...of course he is. that's because of his unprecedented shooting. But teams like the Warriors don't, and won't come along very often so I don't think it's super relevant to determine who fits better with other top 5 players when trying to compare them as players. I mean, there's tons of guys who are more suited to playing with superstars than Durant/LeBron types. I think it is way more important to the discussion to figure out who would have the biggest impact on separate/average teams.

I see it the complete opposite way heh (which is probably why I'm so high on Curry). No-one can win without All-Star help. 2009 LeBron proved that. Who cares if one guy would carry a team to 45 wins and the other 50? I want the guys that seamlessly team up with other stars and make things better than the sum of their parts, rather than vice versa

I think you want the guy that will win the most often, not give a super team the absolute highest ceiling. Basically, Curry might be better on the Warriors than LeBron, but the difference in title equity between LBJ+GS vs Curry+GS is minuscule regardless, whereas there's a much bigger gap in 2012/2013 Heat title equity, or '09-'10 Cavs, if you replace LeBron with Curry. Durant is similar. He's going to, imo, make the bad/avg/good teams better to a bigger degree than Steph will, and while he won't fit next to a star as well as Steph, they'll likely be so good that fit/small difference in equity won't be nearly as big. Basically Curry+star gives you the highest ceiling because he's the best player every to seamlessly fit with another superstar. Basically he's the best 2nd most valuable player of all time and it isn't even close. But that doesn't mean he's better than the stars he's fitting with. Does that make sense?

And this isn't meant to be some shot at Steph. He's enjoying one of the highest peaks we've ever seen. I just don't think it's better than Durant at his best, who I think is gonna go down as one of the best players of all time.

Typically when I browse 2p2 I go straight to my bookmark "subscription threads" so I never venture into clicking on SE but when I do I'm always amazed to see the lebron/jordan thread up there kicking strong with always the same people fighting for the legacy of their favorite player as if it was their life. I'm trying to think of how much i'd need to get paid to read this thread actively

What a basketball mastermind.

SVG realized 3 years later Drummond must be played close to the rim

http://www.nba.com/pistons/features/...us-svg-expects

Well yea, I'm not arguing that Curry is better than 2013 LeBron :P

Im saying that the gap between Curry and LeBron on the 2013 Heat is far more relevant (and is smaller) than the gap between Curry and LeBron on the 2010 Cavs, simply because the latter aren't winning either way.

Also, I 100% take Curry + Wade + Bosh over KD + Wade + Bosh

Wolves fans are now happy because owner will ask Wiggins if he's commited to improving before giving him 148m

SURE. If he doesnt want to improve he'll tell the owner in that face 2 face meeting to save him 148 millions.

I really hope they miss play-offs

Interesting, I wouldn't. Durant seems just as suited to play off the ball as Curry does (obviously the possessions that result in a catch & shoot 3 will have a lower ppp but I'd imagine the effect on team possessions wud be similar- in fact you cud make the argument that Durant as a spacer has a greater effect, not bc he's as good a shooter but bc hes a good enough shooter that NEEDS to be hugged/attended to like Curry, but he will be guarded by the opposing teams best wing which takes away rim protection more than Curry keeping the opposing teams best guard away does) allowing Wade to operate in his comfortable environment more. And even if you think Steph has an offensive edge on this team construction, which as I just alluded to is questionable at best, Durant is such a perfect fit in the Heats blitz D that depended on switchability and quickness that Id have to imagine the difference in value added there is greater than any gap on offense.

Also, of course I beg to differ with "the 2010 Cavs aren't winning anything anyway". It took a couple of flukey* occurances (Orlando godmode from 3 in 09 ECF, LeBron playing the worst game of his life in G5 of 10 ECSF), & the 2009/2010 Lakers are probably the worst teams to win titles in at least a decade. If you ran back those playoffs the Cavs wud be title favs both years.

*I don't wanna turn this into a debate about that, but I think it's ridiculous to say they were never winning, when there's at least a chance they were the best team both years, just bc they only had 1 superstar.

Anyway, like I said before- were really just splitting hairs here, they're both all time great players whose shooting and unselfishness allows them to fit seamlessly in any situation. It's ridiculous that they're on the same team.

the idea that lebron or durant would need to "swallow their ego and alter their games to suit each other" is laughable. their games fit fine together.

and the idea that they would not be able to adjust their games, if need be, due to ego is utter bs. clearly you have not paid actual attention to lebron' mentality and his career development and rather just believe the idiotic narrative driven by haters such as woj and skip bayless.

someone told me lebron tweeted out "dont let anyone ride your wave" last night. presumably as a beta, estrogen fueled, passive aggressive dig at the superstar who bailed him out and hit a bigger shot than he will ever hit in his life. how ironic.

seems like a great guy that totally doesn't take all the credit for others work and blames his team mates when he comes up short.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hilarious that you call lebron beta but steph is some sort non beta. steph is a cuck. letting kd take over whatever he owns.

lol @ David Griffin. Says he never got to test his boundries. He had highest usg, most shots etc etc. Nice flat earther.

Geoff and Banzai - good set of posts by each, the rationales make sense from both of you, and as you said, you're mainly splitting hairs. Let me split some with you.

Would it be acceptable to summarize the discussion in general as:

Durant > Curry on bad/avg/good teams
Curry > Durant on superteams?

If so, I agree with the above, and you guys are mainly finding out where the line is between good and superteam, where Curry's fit and shooting make him > Durant.

I don't think the line has to be superteam, in terms of having other superstars, it just has to have other regular stars. For example, on the 2015 Warriors, if you replace Curry with Durant, which team would be better?

Curry/Klay/Iggy/Dray/Bogut
Livingston/Klay/Durant/Dray/Bogut

Or smaller units of:
Curry/Klay/Barnes/Iggy/Dray
Livingston/Klay/Iggy/Durant/Dray

I would say that the Curry team is better. The defense of 2015 Klay/Iggy/Dray/Bogut is just so filthy that I'd want Curry's offensive orchestration, shooting, gravity, spacing, etc. Basically, the defense is already so good that you want Curry's offense. The offense wouldn't be nearly as good with Durant.

And you're not just trading Curry for Durant, it's more like Curry+Iggy for Livingston+Durant, due to the lineups you would use for a large number of minutes. There's such a large dropoff in 3's from Curry+Iggy to Livingston+Durant, as well as ball movement, spacing, etc. And the defense is arguably not even any better, you're not really going from Curry to Durant on D, you're going from Curry to Livingston, and Iggy to Durant, which is arguably worse.

The above even applies to LeBron, if you switched Curry for LeBron on that team, I don't think the defense would improve as much as people have said earlier itt about a similar situation. The Warriors already had the #1 defense in the league, and as mentioned, Klay/Iggy/Dray/Bogut is fantastic defensively. Changing that to Klay/LeBron/Dray/Bogut doesn't move the needle as much as Curry+Iggy vs Livingston+LeBron moves the needle offensively, ball movement, 3's, spacing, etc.

Yes, their games fit fine enough to win championships, but that's not really what's being discussed. It's more like whose games fit better and do not overlap as much and complement each other more, among superstars, and which superstar requires other's games to adjust more. LeBron makes role players better but arguably does not make stars better, and possibly makes them worse. Curry is not as good as LeBron in a vacuum, but makes role players better and either makes stars better or complements them and does not make them worse. It's not as much about LeBron or Curry adjusting, although Curry does that more, it's that other stars have to adjust to LeBron more than they do Curry.

I think it's a fascinating argument, and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as utter BS. Sure they would fit fine, but is that because both are so freaking good that any overlap in skillsets would still net a really positive team?

LBJ has accomplished everything playing a particular way, this is truth. From what I see, it's part because he's been the de-facto best option, and part him not being a lights out shooter, with the former being much more weighted. Could he play with the Warriors and become a supercharger in their offensive machine rather than the engine he has always been? I don't think the answer is as clear either way.

^ Good post, agree with the above.

Looking back through the thread and came across this. Using time of possession doesn't seem accurate since a lot of that is simply bringing the ball up the court. The entire top 25 is point guards & LeBron. Which is quite telling. If you could isolate it to time of possession after the first pass in the frontcourt, or at least time of possession in the frontcourt, it might be more meaningful.

Average time per touch has the same flaw, incorporates backcourt dribbling/bringing the ball up time, which is not what people are referring to by ball dominance.

Sorting by touches, LeBron is #3 after Westbrook & Harden, while Kyrie is #20, while scoring more points per touch than LeBron. So it's pretty clear who's more ball dominant - not that that's bad, he's LeBron - but it's not accurate to say otherwise by citing time of possession and average time per touch.

Just watched these, they're hilarious. I actually like the second one better, the ball off the giant face is great, and the half-court shot is amazing to watch.

Gerald Henderson is having hip surgery and might be out for the season.