If you dream of Wade, Bosh, etc in 2010

[Moranis]

The simple truth is Durant is a volume scorer that makes no one around him better.  And frankly outside of Big Z, the Cavs were down right awful in 04-05.  I'd take Westbrook and Green over anyone (aside from Z).  Earl Watson was also better than Newble, Snow, and McGinnis which was essentially the Cavs backcourt.  The simple truth is Lebron of 04-05 on the Thunder last year, is at least a 35 win team, because Lebron is just that much better than Durant was at the age of 20.  It isn't close and while Durant improved his game, he didn't make any huge leaps in the rebounding, passing, or defensive departments.

Season Age 5 Tm Lg G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS

2004-05 20 CLE NBA 80 3388 25.7 .554 .504 3.8 17.0 10.2 32.9 2.8 1.1 11.8 29.7 114 103 9.6 4.5 14.1

2008-09 20 OKC NBA 74 2885 20.8 .577 .510 3.0 16.4 9.6 13.5 1.7 1.4 12.2 28.3 111 109 5.3 2.8 8.1

[Fafnir]

You forget, Lebron, starting year 2 had a better supporting cast. Boozer was at least raking in double double's.

Kevin Durant is the sole player the defense focusses on, at least until Westbrook came into his own in the second half.

He's also 20. He hasn't shown you anything yet but at that age are you sure he isn't going to?

Boozer wasn't on the Cavs when Lebron was 20.  The Cavs starting lineup was Big Z, Drew Gooden, Lebron, Ira Newble, and Jeff McGinnis.  Eric Snow, Sasha Pavlovic, Tractor Taylor, and Lucious Harris were the other guys to start any games and Varejao as a rookie also played a fair amount of minutes.  That is not exactly a great rotation as outside of Lebron and Big Z, no one else was worth a crap that year. 

It wasn't a great team, but it's also not that impressive to lead that crew to a lottery pick in a very weak eastern conference that year. I would say Lebron's ability to win games was neither here nor there at that point.

The Cavs went from 17 wins to 35 in Lebron's first year, to 42 in his second year (and lost boozer and ricky davis, two legitimate talents in the process).

The Sonics/Thunder improved by 3 wins from Durant's first to second year, despite adding a top five pick and losing no one of significance.

LeBron is/was and probably always will be better than Durant.

[Moranis]

You forget, Lebron, starting year 2 had a better supporting cast. Boozer was at least raking in double double's.

Kevin Durant is the sole player the defense focusses on, at least until Westbrook came into his own in the second half.

He's also 20. He hasn't shown you anything yet but at that age are you sure he isn't going to?

Boozer wasn't on the Cavs when Lebron was 20.  The Cavs starting lineup was Big Z, Drew Gooden, Lebron, Ira Newble, and Jeff McGinnis.  Eric Snow, Sasha Pavlovic, Tractor Taylor, and Lucious Harris were the other guys to start any games and Varejao as a rookie also played a fair amount of minutes.  That is not exactly a great rotation as outside of Lebron and Big Z, no one else was worth a crap that year. 

It wasn't a great team, but it's also not that impressive to lead that crew to a lottery pick in a very weak eastern conference that year. I would say Lebron's ability to win games was neither here nor there at that point.

The Cavs went from 17 wins to 35 in Lebron's first year, to 42 in his second year (and lost boozer and ricky davis, two legitimate talents in the process).

The Sonics/Thunder improved by 3 wins from Durant's first to second year, despite adding a top five pick and losing no one of significance.

To be fair they had major coaching problems. I don't think its fair to judge Durant solely against Lebron. Watch him as a player, and if you watched his growth, especially since his rookie year, you know we've got somehting special.

The Cavs had a coaching change during the season in 04-05.  Pretty much just like the Thunder.  Durant is not a leader.  He doesn't make his teammates better.  He doesn't play championship basketball.  Sure that could change, but I just don't see it.

[GKC]

The simple truth is Durant is a volume scorer that makes no one around him better.  And frankly outside of Big Z, the Cavs were down right awful in 04-05.  I'd take Westbrook and Green over anyone (aside from Z).  Earl Watson was also better than Newble, Snow, and McGinnis which was essentially the Cavs backcourt.  The simple truth is Lebron of 04-05 on the Thunder last year, is at least a 35 win team, because Lebron is just that much better than Durant was at the age of 20.  It isn't close and while Durant improved his game, he didn't make any huge leaps in the rebounding, passing, or defensive departments.

Season Age 5 Tm Lg G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS

2004-05 20 CLE NBA 80 3388 25.7 .554 .504 3.8 17.0 10.2 32.9 2.8 1.1 11.8 29.7 114 103 9.6 4.5 14.1

2008-09 20 OKC NBA 74 2885 20.8 .577 .510 3.0 16.4 9.6 13.5 1.7 1.4 12.2 28.3 111 109 5.3 2.8 8.1

Any argument on this thread pitting Durant against Lebron only concerned scoring. Nobody said Durant was better than Lebron, only that Durant was going to be great.

[MrTripleDouble10]

You forget, Lebron, starting year 2 had a better supporting cast. Boozer was at least raking in double double's.

Kevin Durant is the sole player the defense focusses on, at least until Westbrook came into his own in the second half.

He's also 20. He hasn't shown you anything yet but at that age are you sure he isn't going to?

Boozer wasn't on the Cavs when Lebron was 20.  The Cavs starting lineup was Big Z, Drew Gooden, Lebron, Ira Newble, and Jeff McGinnis.  Eric Snow, Sasha Pavlovic, Tractor Taylor, and Lucious Harris were the other guys to start any games and Varejao as a rookie also played a fair amount of minutes.  That is not exactly a great rotation as outside of Lebron and Big Z, no one else was worth a crap that year. 

It wasn't a great team, but it's also not that impressive to lead that crew to a lottery pick in a very weak eastern conference that year. I would say Lebron's ability to win games was neither here nor there at that point.

I realize your point about teams looking to save $$$ every way they can nowadays.  Especially a team like OKC, which in a small market, you could make that assumption.  But they are building a solid foundation of good players to support Durant.  Besides, most, if not all players at the caliber that he is at his age, signed that extension with the team that drafted them.

Even Chris Paul signed that max extension.  New Orleans is one of those teams that is trying to shed salary.  Yet they know that keeping a player like Paul is one of the only ways to stay above water due to the draw he has with fans.  OKC would actually be digging their own grave with dynamite if they let Durant go.

[GKC]

You forget, Lebron, starting year 2 had a better supporting cast. Boozer was at least raking in double double's.

Kevin Durant is the sole player the defense focusses on, at least until Westbrook came into his own in the second half.

He's also 20. He hasn't shown you anything yet but at that age are you sure he isn't going to?

Boozer wasn't on the Cavs when Lebron was 20.  The Cavs starting lineup was Big Z, Drew Gooden, Lebron, Ira Newble, and Jeff McGinnis.  Eric Snow, Sasha Pavlovic, Tractor Taylor, and Lucious Harris were the other guys to start any games and Varejao as a rookie also played a fair amount of minutes.  That is not exactly a great rotation as outside of Lebron and Big Z, no one else was worth a crap that year. 

It wasn't a great team, but it's also not that impressive to lead that crew to a lottery pick in a very weak eastern conference that year. I would say Lebron's ability to win games was neither here nor there at that point.

I realize your point about teams looking to save $$$ every way they can nowadays.  Especially a team like OKC, which in a small market, you could make that assumption.  But they are building a solid foundation of good players to support Durant.  Besides, most, if not all players at the caliber that he is at his age, signed that extension with the team that drafted them.

Even Chris Paul signed that max extension.  New Orleans is one of those teams that is trying to shed salary.  Yet they know that keeping a player like Paul is one of the only ways to stay above water due to the draw he has with fans.  OKC would actually be digging their own grave with dynamite if they let Durant go.

Absolutely agree. That's my point. Many people get franchise money even though they aren't franchise worthy.

Durant though is a max contract guy. There's no doubt about it.

[byennie]

The Cavs went from 17 wins to 35 in Lebron's first year, to 42 in his second year (and lost boozer and ricky davis, two legitimate talents in the process).

The Sonics/Thunder improved by 3 wins from Durant's first to second year, despite adding a top five pick and losing no one of significance.

Doesn't change the fact that LeBron had a much better supporting cast. Cleveland had different problems in their 17 win season. LeBron started his career playing with Boozer, Illgauskus, Ricky Davis, veteran point guards, Eric Williams and Tony Battie off the bench... a pretty decent team. Durant joined a team who's second leader scorer was Chris Wilcox and was literally falling apart as a franchise.

Apples to oranges, totally different situations, and you can only put so much stock in "winning" when your team doesn't even make the playoffs despite two All-Star caliber big men plus a cast of experienced veterans.

[byennie]

The simple truth is Durant is a volume scorer that makes no one around him better.

Do you know the definition of "volume scorer"? Because Durant is one of the most efficient scorers in the league, which is the complete opposite. He was basically Dirk, but better from 3PT.

You don't have to exaggerate Durant's faults to point out how good LeBron is. The "making others around him" part is obviously impossible to prove at this point, because his team sucks.

[Moranis]

The Cavs went from 17 wins to 35 in Lebron's first year, to 42 in his second year (and lost boozer and ricky davis, two legitimate talents in the process).

The Sonics/Thunder improved by 3 wins from Durant's first to second year, despite adding a top five pick and losing no one of significance.

Doesn't change the fact that LeBron had a much better supporting cast. Cleveland had different problems in their 17 win season. LeBron started his career playing with Boozer, Illgauskus, Ricky Davis, veteran point guards, Eric Williams and Tony Battie off the bench... a pretty decent team. Durant joined a team who's second leader scorer was Chris Wilcox and was literally falling apart as a franchise.

Apples to oranges, totally different situations, and you can only put so much stock in "winning" when your team doesn't even make the playoffs despite two All-Star caliber big men plus a cast of experienced veterans.

the 42 win team in Lebron's second year didn't have boozer, didn't have davis.  It was pretty much Lebron, Z, and a bunch of crappy young players or crappy veterans.  Green, Westbrook, and Watson would have been no worse than the third, fourth, and fifth best players on the Cavs (and would not have been that far from Z).  The Thunder won 23 games. 

Durant is not a leader and doesn't make his teammates better.  He is a terrible rebounder.  His defense is way below par.  He is an excellent scorer, but excellent scorers without anything else, are not franchise builders.  Sure he will be getting a max contract, but if Durant was my best player I wouldn't feel confident at all about winning.  He is just not a winner.

[Fafnir]

The Cavs went from 17 wins to 35 in Lebron's first year, to 42 in his second year (and lost boozer and ricky davis, two legitimate talents in the process).

The Sonics/Thunder improved by 3 wins from Durant's first to second year, despite adding a top five pick and losing no one of significance.

Doesn't change the fact that LeBron had a much better supporting cast. Cleveland had different problems in their 17 win season. LeBron started his career playing with Boozer, Illgauskus, Ricky Davis, veteran point guards, Eric Williams and Tony Battie off the bench... a pretty decent team. Durant joined a team who's second leader scorer was Chris Wilcox and was literally falling apart as a franchise.

Apples to oranges, totally different situations, and you can only put so much stock in "winning" when your team doesn't even make the playoffs despite two All-Star caliber big men plus a cast of experienced veterans.

the 42 win team in Lebron's second year didn't have boozer, didn't have davis.  It was pretty much Lebron, Z, and a bunch of crappy young players or crappy veterans.  Green, Westbrook, and Watson would have been no worse than the third, fourth, and fifth best players on the Cavs (and would not have been that far from Z).  The Thunder won 23 games. 

Durant is not a leader and doesn't make his teammates better.  He is a terrible rebounder.  His defense is way below par.  He is an excellent scorer, but excellent scorers without anything else, are not franchise builders.  Sure he will be getting a max contract, but if Durant was my best player I wouldn't feel confident at all about winning.  He is just not a winner.

Check his rebounding when he moved to SF. His rebounding rate went up to respectable levels after that.

[Moranis]

The simple truth is Durant is a volume scorer that makes no one around him better.

Do you know the definition of "volume scorer"? Because Durant is one of the most efficient scorers in the league, which is the complete opposite. He was basically Dirk, but better from 3PT.

You don't have to exaggerate Durant's faults to point out how good LeBron is. The "making others around him" part is obviously impossible to prove at this point, because his team sucks.

my point is his team sucks because he is not an elite player.  Frankly I think he is a better shooting version of Iverson.  He doesn't play defense, he doesn't pass, he doesn't rebound (a total rebound percentage less than 10 from a man his size is beyond embarrassing).  If he was a more complete player, his team wouldn't suck.  They probably wouldn't have made the playoffs, but 23 wins is embarrassing.

[byennie]

the 42 win team in Lebron's second year didn't have boozer, didn't have davis.  It was pretty much Lebron, Z, and a bunch of crappy young players or crappy veterans.  Green, Westbrook, and Watson would have been no worse than the third, fourth, and fifth best players on the Cavs (and would not have been that far from Z).  The Thunder won 23 games. 

1) Z was an All-Star center in 2003 and 2005, which is way better than any of the Thunder big men. Collison and Krstic played a total of 68 games combined, and they even had to throw Johan Petro and Robert Swift out there to stink up the joint.

2) Drew Gooden put up 14 / 9 that year and was at least as good as Jeff Green.

3) Westbrook put up decent numbers, but he's a rookie point guard. He turned the ball over way too much (his assist to turnover ration was UNDER 2:1) and shot less than 40%.

Veterans help win balls games. Ultra young teams with rookie point guards and a mess at center don't.

Durant is not a leader and doesn't make his teammates better.  He is a terrible rebounder.  His defense is way below par.  He is an excellent scorer, but excellent scorers without anything else, are not franchise builders.  Sure he will be getting a max contract, but if Durant was my best player I wouldn't feel confident at all about winning.  He is just not a winner.

If you think LeBron was way ahead of him as a winner in this second year, that's fine (although I disagree). I just don't see how you suppose to know whether this guy is a winner at this point in his career.

So far you say:

He's a volume scorer (totally untrue, he's very efficient)
He's a lousy rebounder (3rd leading rebounder at SF in the league)
He has no all-around skills (actually, he's a pretty good rebounder, has decent assist totals, blocked shots, steals...)

I'll give you lousy defense, but that's pretty common at this point. LeBron didn't play much defense until the last year or so.

Like I said before, no need to exaggerate Durant's weaknesses to make LeBron look good.

[yall hate]

ESPN has a nice little article on +/- with Durant, which essentially says that despite being an emerging superstar, his team is actually worse when he plays. 

I thought the article was relevant to post here...The second link is a follow up article.  Very interesting analysis of how Durant is actually statistically worse for the team.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-45-35/The-Kevin-Durant-Conundrum.html

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-45-42/Memo-to-a-Young-Baller.html

[indeedproceed]

ESPN has a nice little article on +/- with Durant, which essentially says that despite being an emerging superstar, his team is actually worse when he plays. 

I thought the article was relevant to post here...The second link is a follow up article.  Very interesting analysis of how Durant is actually statistically worse for the team.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-45-35/The-Kevin-Durant-Conundrum.html

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-45-42/Memo-to-a-Young-Baller.html

I particularly thought this was spot on:

Just as it's undoubtedly a challenge for young Kevin Durant to perform the duties of a superstar, it may also be hard for his young teammates to know how to account for his abilities.

In other words, when Durant is benched, Westbrook, Green et al can make basketball decisions more or less as they have their entire basketball lives.

When Durant, superstar-in-the-making, is on the court, his teammates would presumably be aware of that. Hesitant jumpers, seams in the defense unexploited and shot-clock wasted finding Durant when he doesn't have the team's highest percentage shot ... you can find examples of all that on video.

This could explain why the Thunder are not just (far) worse on defense when Durant plays. They're also, surprisingly, slightly worse on offense.

Durant would not have that problem here.

[Chris]

For me, the problem is not with Durant, it is with the team they have built around him.  They really have done a terrible job of putting players that compliment Durant together. 

Their best players other than Durant are a very solid all around player in Green...who happens to be a prototypical SF, which is the same position Durant needs to be playing...and Westbrook, who is a shoot first PG who needs the ball in his hands to be successful. 

They also have no real shot blockers, and really no real starting quality PF's. 

Yes, Durant needs to improve defensively, but he is never going to be on a winning team, until he is matched up with some defensive big men (Chandler would be perfect), and a pass first PG. 

Ideally, he would also be in an uptempo system.