Call me crazy but Durant to Boston...not a good idea

[Smitty77]

Butler is nowhere near as good as Durant.

To begin with Durant's PER during his career is 25. Butler's is 17.7.

http://bkref.com/tiny/UUvTJ

You are right and WRONG.  Durant is better offensively.  BUT, Durant is HALF the defensive player that Butler is.  Butler is ranked 68th and Durant 150th on ESPN's real plus/minus defensive measure.

Smitty77

[CoachBo]

Only on CelticsBlog would there be a thread about how it's a bad idea that a top 3 player in the NBA who is only 27 years old is a bad idea.

And I disagree with the notion he goes to Golden State. That makes him look worse than LeBron.  At least when LeBron went to Miami he took a good team and made it great. If Durant went to the Warriors, he'd be going to the best team in the NBA. What would that prove other than he would could ride Curry and Green's coat-tails to a title?

TP for the gospel truth. This has been quite the day on this blog for posts that have me shaking my head. Haven't seen anything quite like this since the "Rondo is better than Bob Cousy" nonsense.

[greece66]

Butler is nowhere near as good as Durant.

To begin with Durant's PER during his career is 25. Butler's is 17.7.

http://bkref.com/tiny/UUvTJ

You are right and WRONG.  Durant is better offensively.  BUT, Durant is HALF the defensive player that Butler is.  Butler is ranked 68th and Durant 150th on ESPN's real plus/minus defensive measure.

Smitty77

Nope.

First, you make the same mistake many other ppl do with Butler: you look only at his last two seasons, not his career.

Second, PER's formula takes into account defensive performance too. True, it is not perfect at calculating defensive contribution but it does count for things like steals, blocks etc

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

Third, since when being ranked 150th means you are 'half' as good as the player ranked 68th?  lol

[walker834]

I think he was trying to say  Butler is better for this team in that we aren't banking all on Durant.

Banking everything on Durant is a bad idea.  I agree with what he is trying to say.

Butler is more like Ray Allen in that regard. I don't think Butler is as good as Ray Allen is the problem.  It's somewhat close though. That would be a good debate. Durant vs KG.  Isaiah vs Pierce.  I don't know about that to be honest.

[Ilikesports17]

Butler is nowhere near as good as Durant.

To begin with Durant's PER during his career is 25. Butler's is 17.7.

http://bkref.com/tiny/UUvTJ

You are right and WRONG.  Durant is better offensively.  BUT, Durant is HALF the defensive player that Butler is.  Butler is ranked 68th and Durant 150th on ESPN's real plus/minus defensive measure.

Smitty77

Nope.

First, you make the same mistake many other ppl do with Butler: you look only at his last two seasons, not his career.

Second, PER's formula takes into account defensive performance too. True, it is not perfect at calculating defensive contribution but it does count for things like steals, blocks etc

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

Third, since when being ranked 150th means you are 'half' as good as the player ranked 68th?  lol

PER is a very flawed stat. Id say it is the most useless advanced stat if it even counts as one. Second 150th vs. 68th is a big enough discrepency that Id say the verbiage half might be appropriate. Either way, Butler is a far better defensive player.

Lastly, looking at Jimmys last two years seams fair. He has made great strides in his career. Jimmy Butler is a far cry from the player he was 3 or 4 years ago.

[greece66]

Butler is nowhere near as good as Durant.

To begin with Durant's PER during his career is 25. Butler's is 17.7.

http://bkref.com/tiny/UUvTJ

You are right and WRONG.  Durant is better offensively.  BUT, Durant is HALF the defensive player that Butler is.  Butler is ranked 68th and Durant 150th on ESPN's real plus/minus defensive measure.

Smitty77

Nope.

First, you make the same mistake many other ppl do with Butler: you look only at his last two seasons, not his career.

Second, PER's formula takes into account defensive performance too. True, it is not perfect at calculating defensive contribution but it does count for things like steals, blocks etc

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

Third, since when being ranked 150th means you are 'half' as good as the player ranked 68th?  lol

PER is a very flawed stat. Id say it is the most useless advanced stat if it even counts as one. Second 150th vs. 68th is a big enough discrepency that Id say the verbiage half might be appropriate. Either way, Butler is a far better defensive player.

Lastly, looking at Jimmys last two years seams fair. He has made great strides in his career. Jimmy Butler is a far cry from the player he was 3 or 4 years ago.

Say what you want about PER, Butler is nowhere near where Durant is.

If you compare them per 36 min the cats where Butler is better is turnovers, ORBs and steals. Everywhere else Durant is better, often by a large margin (pts, DRBs, eFG%).

'Far better' defensive player based on what? There is not a single stat cat that suggests there is such a wide margin. Besides, Durant has length which translates into def rebounds and blocks + he can defend multiple positions.

Again, it's not that I do not like Butler. He is an excellent player, he would be a great fit in Boston. But comparing him with Durant is wrong- you really think that if you replaced Durant with Butler in OKC they would be anywhere near a 55 win team in the WCF? Or that if Durant played for Chicago they would be a 9th seed in the East?

PS: there are many people who have a couple of good seasons but cannot sustain that performance over a longer period. Not saying this will necessarily happen with Butler, but Durant's durability in the top-10 counts for something.

[LooseCannon]

Calling you crazy would be an unjustified insult to crazy people.

[Ilikesports17]

Butler is nowhere near as good as Durant.

To begin with Durant's PER during his career is 25. Butler's is 17.7.

http://bkref.com/tiny/UUvTJ

You are right and WRONG.  Durant is better offensively.  BUT, Durant is HALF the defensive player that Butler is.  Butler is ranked 68th and Durant 150th on ESPN's real plus/minus defensive measure.

Smitty77

Nope.

First, you make the same mistake many other ppl do with Butler: you look only at his last two seasons, not his career.

Second, PER's formula takes into account defensive performance too. True, it is not perfect at calculating defensive contribution but it does count for things like steals, blocks etc

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

Third, since when being ranked 150th means you are 'half' as good as the player ranked 68th?  lol

PER is a very flawed stat. Id say it is the most useless advanced stat if it even counts as one. Second 150th vs. 68th is a big enough discrepency that Id say the verbiage half might be appropriate. Either way, Butler is a far better defensive player.

Lastly, looking at Jimmys last two years seams fair. He has made great strides in his career. Jimmy Butler is a far cry from the player he was 3 or 4 years ago.

Say what you want about PER, Butler is nowhere near where Durant is.

If you compare them per 36 min the cats where Butler is better is turnovers, ORBs and steals. Everywhere else Durant is better, often by a large margin (pts, DRBs, eFG%).

'Far better' defensive player based on what? There is not a single stat cat that suggests there is such a wide margin. Besides, Durant has length which translates into def rebounds and blocks + he can defend multiple positions.

Again, it's not that I do not like Butler. He is an excellent player, he would be a great fit in Boston. But comparing him with Durant is wrong- you really think that if you replaced Durant with Butler in OKC they would be anywhere near a 55 win team in the WCF? Or that if Durant played for Chicago they would be a 9th seed in the East?

PS: there are many people who have a couple of good seasons but cannot sustain that performance over a longer period. Not saying this will necessarily happen with Butler, but Durant's durability in the top-10 counts for something.

Oh for sure.

Butler Durant is not an argument worth having. Durant >> Butler. I just think your 3 reasons were bad. PER sucks. Jimmys last two years are worth evaluating, and Jimmy is way better defensively.

Thats my stance

[Ilikesports17]

I think he was trying to say  Butler is better for this team in that we aren't banking all on Durant.

Banking everything on Durant is a bad idea.  I agree with what he is trying to say.

Butler is more like Ray Allen in that regard. I don't think Butler is as good as Ray Allen is the problem.  It's somewhat close though. That would be a good debate. Durant vs KG.  Isaiah vs Pierce.  I don't know about that to be honest.

KG - Durant is comparable
Pierce - Butler is advantage Pierce
Allen - Thomas is probably advantage Allen but its closeish

However the Durant Butler Thomas crew is far younger and I think Brad is better than Doc and depending on how Butler would be acquired the supporting cast for this squad could be better as well. 

[spikelovetheCelts]

Lol at the concept that we are better off overpaying for obscenely overrated jimmy butler (the cost of which may include Bradley, smart, crowder and the Brooklyn pick) rather than outright signing one of the three greatest players in the world.

The hysteria surrounding premium-brand Ricky Davis is at an all-time high.

It would be wiser to have OKC give the extra year and then trade for KD than getting bulter a that price, IMO.  If we get Ingram or Simmons we can grow as a team with all our other picks coming too.

[mmmmm]

I was with you until you said Durant < Butler

Durant is a top 5 player

Never said Durant < Butler. I said the opposite tha Durant is FAR the better player, but Butler is better fit for the team than Durant

You don't get a superstar like Durant hoping he fits your team.

You get a superstar like Durant and then fit the team to him.

[mmmmm]

Butler is nowhere near as good as Durant.

To begin with Durant's PER during his career is 25. Butler's is 17.7.

http://bkref.com/tiny/UUvTJ

You are right and WRONG.  Durant is better offensively.  BUT, Durant is HALF the defensive player that Butler is.  Butler is ranked 68th and Durant 150th on ESPN's real plus/minus defensive measure.

Smitty77

Umm.... that statement makes no sense.

I'm not sure you understand the size of the error bars with the RAPM ranking numbers.

My advice would be not take them as seriously as you seem to.

[mmmmm]

Butler is nowhere near as good as Durant.

To begin with Durant's PER during his career is 25. Butler's is 17.7.

http://bkref.com/tiny/UUvTJ

You are right and WRONG.  Durant is better offensively.  BUT, Durant is HALF the defensive player that Butler is.  Butler is ranked 68th and Durant 150th on ESPN's real plus/minus defensive measure.

Smitty77

Nope.

First, you make the same mistake many other ppl do with Butler: you look only at his last two seasons, not his career.

Second, PER's formula takes into account defensive performance too. True, it is not perfect at calculating defensive contribution but it does count for things like steals, blocks etc

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

Third, since when being ranked 150th means you are 'half' as good as the player ranked 68th?  lol

PER is a very flawed stat. Id say it is the most useless advanced stat if it even counts as one. Second 150th vs. 68th is a big enough discrepency that Id say the verbiage half might be appropriate. Either way, Butler is a far better defensive player.

Lastly, looking at Jimmys last two years seams fair. He has made great strides in his career. Jimmy Butler is a far cry from the player he was 3 or 4 years ago.

Re: the relative rankings.  Actually, they are probably both ranked within the statistical uncertainty of each other.