NBA Season 2021-22

[bello_man09]

I am a fan of that Wolves team- but is it me or there is no Rim Protection in the nba anymore- Ja goes in for a nice left handed lay-up no one there to really bother his shot. Curry does the same- Curry not as explosive- this is a reason i am a fan of our team- You either have Theis- AL - Or timelord there to bother shots. I just felt those game winners where too easy.

[bdm860]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

But Durant is a superstar and DeRozan isn't.  The argument was that despite DeRozan's improved regular season he was still just the same old non-superstar DeRozan he has always been.  DeRozan's poor series doesn't change that fact nor does it change Durant's status as a superstar, because Durant is actually a superstar.  We have years of evidence to support both those positions and the collected national responses to those poor series further supports that as well i.e. Durant is getting killed because he is a superstar and superstars aren't supposed to play that poorly, while DeRozan isn't getting killed because he isn't a superstar.

This is the argument I'm responding to:

That he took 10 shots tonight?  Or 9 in Game 3? Went 6 for 25 in Game 1?  I don't care how many injuries a team has, this is not what I expect from a "superstar".  If the dude can't get shots because other players are out, he's just not that great.

Wouldn't that also suggest that Durant isn't a superstar and is "not that great".

With all these players we have a body of work to look at. All year, from some posters here, I heard this is a "new and improved" DeRozan.  From my view, it looks like we got the same old DeRozan in the playoffs.

You can have a bad series, it  happens.  We can look at Durant's body of work.  Wow he averaged 35/10/5/1/1 against the Bucks last year.  They certainly didn't lose because Durant didn't show up.  If anything it looks like he picked up the load with Irving out and Harden on one leg.

Durant has many times come up big in elimination games. 39 against Memohis in '11, 32 against Miami in '12, 36 and 33 against Memphis in '14, 31 against the Spurs in '14, skipping GS though he had a lot of gems there, but then he had 48 going out against MIL last year.  The body of work is there.  Also helped his team beat superior opponents in the playoffs ('16 Spurs) or at least go toe-to-toe with them ('16 Warriors).

So I won't judge Durant as harshly for a bad series, because I have a whole career to look at.

All year, people were saying DeRozan has changed.  In the playoffs, when it matters I didn't see it.  So does DeRozan have that same body of work to give him the benefit of the doubt?  I don't think so.

Also not really getting Clay's argument that it's okay for DeRozan to play worse because his good teammates were out.  White, Dosunmu, Brown Jr. taking more shots was not the better solution.  DeRozan taking 10 fewer shots and 6 fewer FTs than normal, but getting 2 more assists doesn't work for me.  I wanted to see DeRozan step up with his teammates out.

[footey]

Per Ime Jaylen hammy being managed. Should be available for game 1. Not exactly what was said yesterday. Cause for concern?

[celticsclay]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

But Durant is a superstar and DeRozan isn't.  The argument was that despite DeRozan's improved regular season he was still just the same old non-superstar DeRozan he has always been.  DeRozan's poor series doesn't change that fact nor does it change Durant's status as a superstar, because Durant is actually a superstar.  We have years of evidence to support both those positions and the collected national responses to those poor series further supports that as well i.e. Durant is getting killed because he is a superstar and superstars aren't supposed to play that poorly, while DeRozan isn't getting killed because he isn't a superstar.

I'm confused. Who is saying KD isn't a superstar and that DeRozan is at that level?? I haven't really seen people doing that not even in the national media

Yeah it’s just a straw man argument. Don’t think I or
Anyone else said he was a superstar. My point is that he has significantly improved since he left Toronto abs has improved his playmaking and other areas of his game significantly. He has also gotten a lot better creating his own shot. Hollinger, lowe and others have had nice pieces on his games evolution. He is going to make all nba second team most likely which he did one other time in his career in 2018. So when people say “same old Toronto demar” it just lazy and inaccurate observations. You put this version of demar on his last Toronto team with a younger Lowry, a not washed ibaka, Jonas and young versions of van fleet and siakam abs I think at a minimum he leads that team to more playoff wins with this current version of him. Seems pretty hard to argue other wise and don’t think all the nba analysts are wrong.

[RPGenerate]

DeFrozen has been terrible in the playoffs his whole career, but people kept telling me that somehow this time would be different. Make all the excuses you want for the guy, but it's simply a fact that he's a tire fire when the defenses get a chance to gameplan for him in a 7 game series. And no, I don't care about his regular season improvement; I don't care if he becomes Lebron in the regular season. Bring it in the playoffs or it doesn't matter.

[Moranis]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

But Durant is a superstar and DeRozan isn't.  The argument was that despite DeRozan's improved regular season he was still just the same old non-superstar DeRozan he has always been.  DeRozan's poor series doesn't change that fact nor does it change Durant's status as a superstar, because Durant is actually a superstar.  We have years of evidence to support both those positions and the collected national responses to those poor series further supports that as well i.e. Durant is getting killed because he is a superstar and superstars aren't supposed to play that poorly, while DeRozan isn't getting killed because he isn't a superstar.

I'm confused. Who is saying KD isn't a superstar and that DeRozan is at that level?? I haven't really seen people doing that not even in the national media

I literally responded to the person that was equating DeRozan and Durant similarly based on a poor series.   They aren't similar.  A poor series from Durant doesn't mean he isn't a superstar.  Just like a great series from DeRozan wouldn't have indicated he was a superstar.  They aren't the same, so the fact that they both played poorly doesn't make them similar.

[Moranis]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

But Durant is a superstar and DeRozan isn't.  The argument was that despite DeRozan's improved regular season he was still just the same old non-superstar DeRozan he has always been.  DeRozan's poor series doesn't change that fact nor does it change Durant's status as a superstar, because Durant is actually a superstar.  We have years of evidence to support both those positions and the collected national responses to those poor series further supports that as well i.e. Durant is getting killed because he is a superstar and superstars aren't supposed to play that poorly, while DeRozan isn't getting killed because he isn't a superstar.

I'm confused. Who is saying KD isn't a superstar and that DeRozan is at that level?? I haven't really seen people doing that not even in the national media

Yeah it’s just a straw man argument. Don’t think I or
Anyone else said he was a superstar. My point is that he has significantly improved since he left Toronto abs has improved his playmaking and other areas of his game significantly. He has also gotten a lot better creating his own shot. Hollinger, lowe and others have had nice pieces on his games evolution. He is going to make all nba second team most likely which he did one other time in his career in 2018. So when people say “same old Toronto demar” it just lazy and inaccurate observations. You put this version of demar on his last Toronto team with a younger Lowry, a not washed ibaka, Jonas and young versions of van fleet and siakam abs I think at a minimum he leads that team to more playoff wins with this current version of him. Seems pretty hard to argue other wise and don’t think all the nba analysts are wrong.

And yet when the heat was up in the playoffs he was the same old player because he is actually the same old player. 

DeRozan did not set a single career best this year in advanced metrics and the only stats he set were 3PT shooting and ppg (barely).  This wasn't an abnormally great season from DeRozan such that you could say he made all of these changes in his game (and why would anyone have a huge jump in ability when they are in their 30's).  DeRozan has had better shooting seasons, he has had better rebounding and passing seasons, steal and block generation seasons, etc.  DeRozan is exactly the same player he always been i.e. a guy that is a very good regular season player but can't be relied upon in the post season because he isn't good enough.  That is who he is and I absolutely do not believe that the PF DeRozan of this year would have made 2018 Toronto better than the SG DeRozan that actually played for Toronto that season. 

And for the record, DeRozan was 2nd Team All NBA in 18 after being 3rd Team in 17.  This is not new.

[Roy H.]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

But Durant is a superstar and DeRozan isn't.  The argument was that despite DeRozan's improved regular season he was still just the same old non-superstar DeRozan he has always been.  DeRozan's poor series doesn't change that fact nor does it change Durant's status as a superstar, because Durant is actually a superstar.  We have years of evidence to support both those positions and the collected national responses to those poor series further supports that as well i.e. Durant is getting killed because he is a superstar and superstars aren't supposed to play that poorly, while DeRozan isn't getting killed because he isn't a superstar.

This is the argument I'm responding to:

That he took 10 shots tonight?  Or 9 in Game 3? Went 6 for 25 in Game 1?  I don't care how many injuries a team has, this is not what I expect from a "superstar".  If the dude can't get shots because other players are out, he's just not that great.

Wouldn't that also suggest that Durant isn't a superstar and is "not that great".

With all these players we have a body of work to look at. All year, from some posters here, I heard this is a "new and improved" DeRozan.  From my view, it looks like we got the same old DeRozan in the playoffs.

You can have a bad series, it  happens.  We can look at Durant's body of work.  Wow he averaged 35/10/5/1/1 against the Bucks last year.  They certainly didn't lose because Durant didn't show up.  If anything it looks like he picked up the load with Irving out and Harden on one leg.

Durant has many times come up big in elimination games. 39 against Memohis in '11, 32 against Miami in '12, 36 and 33 against Memphis in '14, 31 against the Spurs in '14, skipping GS though he had a lot of gems there, but then he had 48 going out against MIL last year.  The body of work is there.  Also helped his team beat superior opponents in the playoffs ('16 Spurs) or at least go toe-to-toe with them ('16 Warriors).

So I won't judge Durant as harshly for a bad series, because I have a whole career to look at.

All year, people were saying DeRozan has changed.  In the playoffs, when it matters I didn't see it.  So does DeRozan have that same body of work to give him the benefit of the doubt?  I don't think so.

Also not really getting Clay's argument that it's okay for DeRozan to play worse because his good teammates were out.  White, Dosunmu, Brown Jr. taking more shots was not the better solution.  DeRozan taking 10 fewer shots and 6 fewer FTs than normal, but getting 2 more assists doesn't work for me.  I wanted to see DeRozan step up with his teammates out.

The track record argument is fine.  It's a fair one.  I just thought the (to paraphrase) "if a guy can't get shots or shoots really poorly, then he's not a superstar / not that great" argument was a bit off-base.  If that were true, Durant would no longer be a superstar.

[Roy H.]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

But Durant is a superstar and DeRozan isn't.  The argument was that despite DeRozan's improved regular season he was still just the same old non-superstar DeRozan he has always been.  DeRozan's poor series doesn't change that fact nor does it change Durant's status as a superstar, because Durant is actually a superstar.  We have years of evidence to support both those positions and the collected national responses to those poor series further supports that as well i.e. Durant is getting killed because he is a superstar and superstars aren't supposed to play that poorly, while DeRozan isn't getting killed because he isn't a superstar.

I'm confused. Who is saying KD isn't a superstar and that DeRozan is at that level?? I haven't really seen people doing that not even in the national media

I literally responded to the person that was equating DeRozan and Durant similarly based on a poor series.   They aren't similar.  A poor series from Durant doesn't mean he isn't a superstar.  Just like a great series from DeRozan wouldn't have indicated he was a superstar.  They aren't the same, so the fact that they both played poorly doesn't make them similar.

I'm not sure you're using "equate" here correctly?

Let's break it down into a logic table for you:

If X, then Y.  Here, X = Can't get shots or shoots very poorly.  Y = Isn't a Superstar

If "X -> Y" is true, then it applies no matter who the X is.  And, for the past series, both Durant and DeRozan were X.  The logical conclusion, then, is that both were Y, as well.

Since that's not true, then we know that "X -> Y" is not a true statement.

[Atzar]

In fairness to Derozan, the guy could have had 15+ assists last night if the Bulls could hit an outside jumpshot.  Milwaukee overplayed him because they knew nobody else was a threat, he continually made the right play, and it earned him the wrong end of a blowout because the Bulls couldn't make shots.  He didn't have a good series overall but I find it hard to blame him for what happened in game 5.

[Moranis]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

But Durant is a superstar and DeRozan isn't.  The argument was that despite DeRozan's improved regular season he was still just the same old non-superstar DeRozan he has always been.  DeRozan's poor series doesn't change that fact nor does it change Durant's status as a superstar, because Durant is actually a superstar.  We have years of evidence to support both those positions and the collected national responses to those poor series further supports that as well i.e. Durant is getting killed because he is a superstar and superstars aren't supposed to play that poorly, while DeRozan isn't getting killed because he isn't a superstar.

I'm confused. Who is saying KD isn't a superstar and that DeRozan is at that level?? I haven't really seen people doing that not even in the national media

I literally responded to the person that was equating DeRozan and Durant similarly based on a poor series.   They aren't similar.  A poor series from Durant doesn't mean he isn't a superstar.  Just like a great series from DeRozan wouldn't have indicated he was a superstar.  They aren't the same, so the fact that they both played poorly doesn't make them similar.

I'm not sure you're using "equate" here correctly?

Let's break it down into a logic table for you:

If X, then Y.  Here, X = Can't get shots or shoots very poorly.  Y = Isn't a Superstar

If "X -> Y" is true, then it applies no matter who the X is.  And, for the past series, both Durant and DeRozan were X.  The logical conclusion, then, is that both were Y, as well.

Since that's not true, then we know that "X -> Y" is not a true statement.

No one made that argument.

[Roy H.]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

But Durant is a superstar and DeRozan isn't.  The argument was that despite DeRozan's improved regular season he was still just the same old non-superstar DeRozan he has always been.  DeRozan's poor series doesn't change that fact nor does it change Durant's status as a superstar, because Durant is actually a superstar.  We have years of evidence to support both those positions and the collected national responses to those poor series further supports that as well i.e. Durant is getting killed because he is a superstar and superstars aren't supposed to play that poorly, while DeRozan isn't getting killed because he isn't a superstar.

I'm confused. Who is saying KD isn't a superstar and that DeRozan is at that level?? I haven't really seen people doing that not even in the national media

I literally responded to the person that was equating DeRozan and Durant similarly based on a poor series.   They aren't similar.  A poor series from Durant doesn't mean he isn't a superstar.  Just like a great series from DeRozan wouldn't have indicated he was a superstar.  They aren't the same, so the fact that they both played poorly doesn't make them similar.

I'm not sure you're using "equate" here correctly?

Let's break it down into a logic table for you:

If X, then Y.  Here, X = Can't get shots or shoots very poorly.  Y = Isn't a Superstar

If "X -> Y" is true, then it applies no matter who the X is.  And, for the past series, both Durant and DeRozan were X.  The logical conclusion, then, is that both were Y, as well.

Since that's not true, then we know that "X -> Y" is not a true statement.

No one made that argument.

BDM pretty clearly made the argument that superstars don’t perform like DeRozan did.  And yet, Durant did.

[celticsclay]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

But Durant is a superstar and DeRozan isn't.  The argument was that despite DeRozan's improved regular season he was still just the same old non-superstar DeRozan he has always been.  DeRozan's poor series doesn't change that fact nor does it change Durant's status as a superstar, because Durant is actually a superstar.  We have years of evidence to support both those positions and the collected national responses to those poor series further supports that as well i.e. Durant is getting killed because he is a superstar and superstars aren't supposed to play that poorly, while DeRozan isn't getting killed because he isn't a superstar.

I'm confused. Who is saying KD isn't a superstar and that DeRozan is at that level?? I haven't really seen people doing that not even in the national media

Yeah it’s just a straw man argument. Don’t think I or
Anyone else said he was a superstar. My point is that he has significantly improved since he left Toronto abs has improved his playmaking and other areas of his game significantly. He has also gotten a lot better creating his own shot. Hollinger, lowe and others have had nice pieces on his games evolution. He is going to make all nba second team most likely which he did one other time in his career in 2018. So when people say “same old Toronto demar” it just lazy and inaccurate observations. You put this version of demar on his last Toronto team with a younger Lowry, a not washed ibaka, Jonas and young versions of van fleet and siakam abs I think at a minimum he leads that team to more playoff wins with this current version of him. Seems pretty hard to argue other wise and don’t think all the nba analysts are wrong.

And yet when the heat was up in the playoffs he was the same old player because he is actually the same old player. 

DeRozan did not set a single career best this year in advanced metrics and the only stats he set were 3PT shooting and ppg (barely).  This wasn't an abnormally great season from DeRozan such that you could say he made all of these changes in his game (and why would anyone have a huge jump in ability when they are in their 30's).  DeRozan has had better shooting seasons, he has had better rebounding and passing seasons, steal and block generation seasons, etc.  DeRozan is exactly the same player he always been i.e. a guy that is a very good regular season player but can't be relied upon in the post season because he isn't good enough.  That is who he is and I absolutely do not believe that the PF DeRozan of this year would have made 2018 Toronto better than the SG DeRozan that actually played for Toronto that season. 

And for the record, DeRozan was 2nd Team All NBA in 18 after being 3rd Team in 17.  This is not new.

I literally pointed out he made all nba second team in 18 in my post. If your going to do some silly argument that doesn’t really refute anything I said at least read what I wrote (for the record ****)

[celticsclay]

I don’t blame people for not following demar the last three years. He has been on an average team in Chicago that got hurt real bad by injuries and a really mediocre team in San Antonio. However if you aren’t watching him, please don’t just aggressively spout nonsense for the sake of an argument. Your on the wrong side of this. Demar is not nor has he ever been a superstar. However, he has developed his game a lot since leaving Toronto. Everyone we would consider intelligent about the game has covered this topic
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/amp/nba/news/the-evolution-of-demar-derozan-why-his-value-is-no-longer-in-doubt/dzjrf1pqkgeh1kab8b1gfbx68

Zach lowe on his playmaking development
https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/insider/story/_/id/32965386/lowe-10-things-flourishing-demar-derozan-crisis-philly-legit-good-basketball-okc?platform=amp

Hollinger on his development the last few season
https://theathletic.com/3143728/2022/03/03/hollinger-demar-dirk-derozan-is-turning-midrange-analytics-on-its-head/?amp=1

https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/nba/2021/11/24/22800329/demar-derozan-chicago-bulls

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/33041567/demar-derozan-late-career-renaissance-chicago-bulls?platform=amp

Sorry guys I’m taking hollinger and lowe over cherry picked analysis but people that only use certain advanced stats when it suits their argument.

[liam]

Raps/Sixers going to be a foul fest...