Better Player: Kevin Durant V Stephen Curry

[Mossburg]

1 hour ago, tonyto36 said:

I'm repeating the same things because they're obvious and I've yet to hear anyone refut them.

1.  Durant is comparable if not better on offense

2.  Durant is light years better on defense

3.  Durant plays a position that is much harder to replace

4.  Durants size makes him more valuable and reliable in the playoffs

You're just not acknowledging what everyone is saying. People are talking about Curry's impact on the team, citing various stats and pretty much eye test of offensive flow and the fact that he needs to be picked up 30 feet away from the rim, creating nightmare defensive scrambles. You ignore this. Point number one if true is irrelevant because nobody here is comparing them as individuals outside of the Warriors offense. Point 2 nobody is disputing, and they still think the Warriors are better off because they were a great defensive team before Durant. Durant ha given them more versatility, but he hasn't drastically changed the team. Point 3, again you refuse to acknowledge that Curry is not just another great PG, he transcends the position no different than Magic (in different ways). Point 4 is pure speculation, it's easy to cite evidence for both. Generally I agree, but Curry again is not just another PG. It's true Curry has gotten clamped and/or choked in a couple series, but so has Durant. In fact Durant choked away the Thunder / Warriors series while Curry got it done on the other end.

Basically you refusing to acknowledge things and repeating your own talking points about doesn't mean things haven't been refuted, because you yourself haven't refuted anything, you just keep bringing up your opinions as if they're facts and keep displaying you don't understand team dynamics in a team sport, because swapping a 99 rated PG with an 81 rated PG isn't as big a deal as swapping a 99 rated SF with an 81 rated SF like it's a video game.

Hell, you came in here when Curry was out and posted numbers when the Warriors kept winning as if that proved something, then when Curry comes back and Durant is out and they post better numbers you totally ignore it.

[tonyto36]

19 minutes ago, Mossburg said:

You're just not acknowledging what everyone is saying. People are talking about Curry's impact on the team, citing various stats and pretty much eye test of offensive flow and the fact that he needs to be picked up 30 feet away from the rim, creating nightmare defensive scrambles. You ignore this. Point number one if true is irrelevant because nobody here is comparing them as individuals outside of the Warriors offense. Point 2 nobody is disputing, and they still think the Warriors are better off because they were a great defensive team before Durant. Durant ha given them more versatility, but he hasn't drastically changed the team. Point 3, again you refuse to acknowledge that Curry is not just another great PG, he transcends the position no different than Magic (in different ways). Point 4 is pure speculation, it's easy to cite evidence for both. Generally I agree, but Curry again is not just another PG. It's true Curry has gotten clamped and/or choked in a couple series, but so has Durant. In fact Durant choked away the Thunder / Warriors series while Curry got it done on the other end.

Basically you refusing to acknowledge things and repeating your own talking points about doesn't mean things haven't been refuted, because you yourself haven't refuted anything, you just keep bringing up your opinions as if they're facts and keep displaying you don't understand team dynamics in a team sport, because swapping a 99 rated PG with an 81 rated PG isn't as big a deal as swapping a 99 rated SF with an 81 rated SF like it's a video game.

Hell, you came in here when Curry was out and posted numbers when the Warriors kept winning as if that proved something, then when Curry comes back and Durant is out and they post better numbers you totally ignore it.

I acknowledge what people are saying.  It's just repetitive and shallow and largely wrong.  Curry has a gravitational effect on the defense, and it's a large part of what makes him so great.  But Kevin Durant has just as much an effect if not more.  Kevin Durant hasn't shown he is capable of carrying the ball up the court and scoring from 30 from the rim as well?  YOURE ignoring that.  Kevin Durant can give you the same offensive production and effects on and off the ball that Curry can. 

Curry transcends the position - just like Durant does.  It's all ambiguous platitudes that don't actually mean anything.  Especially given that Durant is even more unique and transcendent.  

I do keep refuting things.  You just choose to ignore them and keep rehashing these same things all of which Durant either does or is arbitrary and unquantifiable like "transcends the position".  Again, as if implying that Durant doesn't also do that and that is something that makes Curry better than Durant.

I do understand team dynamics, and I also understand this is professional sports and Green and Klay wouldn't throw a tantrum and retire if Curry retired.   Durant is the better player by a mile [imo], plays a harder position to replace, and is better suited for the playoffs.  Until you can refute ANY of those things, you're just flat out wrong.  

I honestly didn't even realize Durant was out.  I was only paying attention because I knew Curry was out.  And after a brief lookover.  The Warriors are giving up 111 points per game over the past four games without Durant.  Yes they're scoring about 122 points per game, but lets not act like that's significantly better than the ~111-100 margins they were posting with Durant.  It's still roughly a +11 plus minus, which is still in line with the notion that the Warriors are an absurdly loaded team.  Just because they win with offense vs winning with superior defense with Durant doesn't mean it's any less valid.   In fact, winning defensive battles is almost universally more reliable in the playoffs than hoping to win the variance battle that are shoot outs every night.

I would take 111-100 over 122-111 every single time.  It's more reliable and consistent.  It's why the Nash Suns never won anything.

[Mossburg]

This is why Donald Trump is president.

[seminoles1]

4 hours ago, tonyto36 said:

I would take 111-100 over 122-111 every single time.  It's more reliable and consistent.  It's why the Nash Suns never won anything.

You know the Warriors did with the title before Durant, right?

[beekay414]

4 hours ago, Mossburg said:

This is why Donald Trump is president.

I laughed so hard at this. 

[catcheryea]

a. you ignored the isiah thomas post

9 hours ago, tonyto36 said:

Billups was not the best player on the Pistons.  And even if you argue he was, 1.  It would be by an extremely slim margin [esp. compared to Curry/Magic leading their teams] and 2.  that 2004 Pistons team was clearly a fluke one of in NBA history

 b. humor me, who was the best player on that team if not billups?

[Yfz84]

Curry makes the offense so much better.

Durant makes the defense so much better.

But the team only has a losing record when Klay isn't on the floor!  

[J-ALL-DAY]

8 minutes ago, Yfz84 said:

Curry makes the offense so much better.

Durant makes the defense so much better.

But the team only has a losing record when Klay isn't on the floor!  

Klay for MVP!!!!!

Yesterday KD wasn't really all that engaged on the defensive end or on the boards. You could tell he wasn't trying to push too hard after suffering that calf injury last week. But Sweet Lou wasn't going to be denied either way. Even Klay would have been on the receiving end on some of those buckets last night.

[seminoles1]

22 minutes ago, Yfz84 said:

Curry makes the offense so much better.

Durant makes the defense so much better.

But the team only has a losing record when Klay isn't on the floor!  

Does he make them "so much better"?  The last 2 years have been exactly as good as the 2 years before Durant.

[49er pride]

14 hours ago, catcheryea said:

a. you ignored the isiah thomas post

 b. humor me, who was the best player on that team if not billups?

Kobe

[tonyto36]

23 hours ago, Mossburg said:

This is why Donald Trump is president.

"I can't keep up or deny any of your points, you're right.  I give up".

 

I accept your surrender.

18 hours ago, seminoles1 said:

You know the Warriors did with the title before Durant, right?

So are you trying to say that Barnes = Durant?

Havlicek won a championship without Russell.  Does that prove Russell was worse than Havlicek?

Kareem won a championship without Magic.  Does that prove Magic wasn't the best player on the showtime Lakers and an all time great?

That's blatantly terrible logic.

15 hours ago, catcheryea said:

a. you ignored the isiah thomas post

 b. humor me, who was the best player on that team if not billups?

I missed any Thomas post if it was made.  Yes Thomas is one more example and I did miss that one.   So we're now up to 3 legitimate alpha point guards winning championships.  One of which isn't a traditional PG by size, the other plays on a historically great team - arguably the GOAT, and one couldn't win anything until Bird and Magic got old and once Jordan got help.

46 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

Does he make them "so much better"?  The last 2 years have been exactly as good as the 2 years before Durant.

The Warriors, when engaged and trying hard have been much better on defense with Durant.

The biggest difference is that the Warriors are so good [and they know it], that they coast for half the season and half of most games. 

You also have Kerr managing egos and playing Casspi, Young and Pachulia big minutes.  

And it's worth noting that while Barnes wasn't a dominant defensive player, it not like he was garbage either.

[Yfz84]

2 hours ago, seminoles1 said:

Does he make them "so much better"?  The last 2 years have been exactly as good as the 2 years before Durant.

Unless you take into account the difference in record doing the playoffs.  .  

[49er pride]

1 hour ago, tonyto36 said:

20 hours ago, seminoles1 said:

You know the Warriors did with the title before Durant, right?

So are you trying to say that Barnes = Durant?

Havlicek won a championship without Russell.  Does that prove Russell was worse than Havlicek?

Kareem won a championship without Magic.  Does that prove Magic wasn't the best player on the showtime Lakers and an all time great?

That's blatantly terrible logic.

No he's saying that Curry's Warriors isn't comparable to Nash's Suns because Curry actually won. IDK how you missed that and went on to conclude that he was implying Barnes=Durant LOL

 

Now to respond to your terrible logic

Bill has won without John. How many has Durant won without Curry?

Magic was better than Kareem as a Laker but Kareem was towards the end of his career. However, comparing their careers, it's very debatable.

 

[Kip Smithers]

On 10/01/2018 at 5:20 PM, tonyto36 said:

All of that talk had come since Durant went to the Warriors.  

Oh my goodness, that makes no sense. If anything, it gives I’m every reason to not say that all. It gives much more credence. Like come on. He has no reason to purposely elevate Steph if he doesn’t believe so.

On 10/01/2018 at 5:20 PM, tonyto36 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point is that with a mid level guy replacing Durant (Barnes), the Warriors were the greatest team of all time.  Therefore Curry is better/more important because with him and a mid level guy, the Warriors were the GOAT.  

This is terrible logic because it does nothing to say what the Warriors would be with Durant + mid level guy, and just because the Warriors were ridiculously loaded with Curry doesn't mean he's better.  I was trying to demonstrate how this is terrible logic by showing you an exaggeratedly loaded roster and saying that just because that team is great with Barnes doesn't suddenly mean it a. wouldn't be better with Bird and b.  means Bird is some how less valuable/better

We know what they would be with that mid level guy. They would not be this good. They’d still be great, but they would’nt be a 73 win team because they couldn’t construct an offense around those players that would yield a productivity of that of the Warriors. Simple. You’re basically saying that replace Curry with Teague abs keep everybody else the same can be better than the Warriors 73 win team. And no that’s not gonna happen because you could not construct an offense with Teague & Durabt with the rest of the crew that would be better than the Currys 73 win team. Teague brings something completely different and less effective

 

On 10/01/2018 at 5:20 PM, tonyto36 said:

More unique is ambiguous, but there are plenty of players that imitate Curry or can give you a poor mans version of him.  There is no one even remotely close to Durant - a seven footer with point guard skills and is an all time great shooter and an elite defensive player.    I think it's absolutely fair to say that Durant is more unique.

There isn’t. Anthony Davis you can compare to Durant in terms of Style. I just did it. 

 

On 10/01/2018 at 5:20 PM, tonyto36 said:

He's better suited for the playoffs because he's a wing.  Like I demonstrated before, the vast majority of championship teams are led by wings.   Because point guards wear down due to their smaller nature, it's easier to put length on a point guard (ie Lebron on Rose) rather than length on a wing (ie. imagine Drummond being put on Lebron and how that would go), and lastly because of the ref'ing in the playoffs, wings and their size tend to be much more reliable finishing around the rim (ie. look at IT in the playoffs the past couple years vs Lebron).  

That doesn’t really matter though. Because you’re using conventional wisdom and what trend is, rather than looking at the two players in question. It’s like saying well most championships haven’t been won by a jump shooting team, so I would take a non jump shooting team to win a championship. So you would take 04 Pistons over the Warriors because history has proven that jump shooting teams don’t win championships?

 

On 10/01/2018 at 5:20 PM, tonyto36 said:

No an elite big is more difficult to replace than a point guard, but Curry is a better player than Cousins so it washes out.  Durant plays a more difficult position to replace and also better than Curry.

More difficult position to replace is false, compare the wings in this league and the PGs and tell me if that’s still true

[tonyto36]

26 minutes ago, 49er pride said:

No he's saying that Curry's Warriors isn't comparable to Nash's Suns because Curry actually won. IDK how you missed that and went on to conclude that he was implying Barnes=Durant LOL

 

Now to respond to your terrible logic

Bill has won without John. How many has Durant won without Curry?

Magic was better than Kareem as a Laker but Kareem was towards the end of his career. However, comparing their careers, it's very debatable.

 

Sigh.  If that's what he actually meant, it's just as bad.

Nash played on teams that weren't even remotely as good as the Warriors 2014 squad.

---

Durant hasn't won any without Curry.  You're just repeating my purposefully bad logic.   There is no way you can honestly be trying to argue that Durant is worse because he didn't win a championship in OKC.  

I know he was at the end of the career, and that does nothing to change the point.   It is debatable comparing careers, but again that is completely irrelevant.  

---

Let me give you analogy of what you're doing.

Me:  Abraham Lincoln is the greatest president ever, and it's because he got us through arguably our nations biggest crisis.
You:  YEAH BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE WORST EVER

 

You are missing every single point, misconstruing everything, and talking in circles without contributing anything.  Right or wrong, at least other posters are giving arguments.

13 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

Oh my goodness, that makes no sense. If anything, it gives I’m every reason to not say that all. It gives much more credence. Like come on. He has no reason to purposely elevate Steph if he doesn’t believe so.

We know what they would be with that mid level guy. They would not be this good. They’d still be great, but they would’nt be a 73 win team because they couldn’t construct an offense around those players that would yield a productivity of that of the Warriors. Simple. You’re basically saying that replace Curry with Teague abs keep everybody else the same can be better than the Warriors 73 win team. And no that’s not gonna happen because you could not construct an offense with Teague & Durabt with the rest of the crew that would be better than the Currys 73 win team. Teague brings something completely different and less effective

 

There isn’t. Anthony Davis you can compare to Durant in terms of Style. I just did it. 

 

That doesn’t really matter though. Because you’re using conventional wisdom and what trend is, rather than looking at the two players in question. It’s like saying well most championships haven’t been won by a jump shooting team, so I would take a non jump shooting team to win a championship. So you would take 04 Pistons over the Warriors because history has proven that jump shooting teams don’t win championships?

 

More difficult position to replace is false, compare the wings in this league and the PGs and tell me if that’s still true

Yes, because in the NBA it doesn't behoove a coach to soothe the egos of their star players or to quell media talk about any possible discord in the lockerroom.  Right.  Zero benefit.

No we have no idea what the Warriors would be for a full season [with a full off season to prepare] with a mid level guy in place of Curry and with Durant.   You have absolutely no idea how good or not good they would be and not 73 win team is pure conjecture.  They would have Durant, Green and Klay with a loaded bench.    Also I said Jeff Teague and we're not comparing him to Barnes.  Barnes is a fringe all star calibre player.  He is not a mid level guy.  If we're going to use a Harrison Barnes equivalent at PG, it's much closer to a guy like Isaiah Thomas than Jeff Teague so it's an unfair comparison to start with.    IT - Klay - Durant - Green?  Yes that team could push for 73 wins.   And let us not forget THAT TEAM DIDNT EVEN WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP.  Which further proves my point that point guard driven teams have a harder time succeeding in the playoffs than teams that feature wings.  

 

Anthony Davis is a stretch 4/5.  Durant is a wing that can play big as well as point guard.  They play completely different styles of games.   That's like saying because Lebron and Brandon Bass both have the same body type and (before this season) were okay mid range shooters but not 3 point shooters, they're the same style of player.  

No that is not how I'm viewing things.  I'm looking through the lens of the modern NBA.  And the modern NBA shows that the only time a point guard led team has won in the past decade was with a ridiculously loaded roster supporting Curry.  Even with that same ridiculously loaded roster he couldn't win with a 73 win team - because he got ground to dust in the Finals by the Cavaliers size and length.  On the flip side guys like Durant, Lebron and Kawhi haven't struggled in the playoffs because they have the size and length that is impossible to truly shut down.  

The pool of elite wings vs elite point guards?  Really?

Harden, CP3, Curry, Westbrook, Kyrie, Wall, Lillard, Lowry

Lebron, Durant, Kawhi

Go even further, the gap between the top 5 point guards and the rest of the point guards vs top THREE wings vs the field is a humongous difference.   There are no other wings that even come close to Lebron Durant or Kawhi yet there are maybe 20 point guards that can on any given night out play Harden/Curry/Westbrook/CP3/Kyrie.   Point guard is by far the deepest and most easily replaceable position in the NBA right now and it's not even remotely close.  Some of these other things I'll debate you on, but this one is not even remotely close.