Kevin Durant is the Ninth Member of Pro Basketball's 30,000 Point Club
The Memphis Grizzlies built a 19 point lead and held on to defeat the Phoenix Suns 119-112, but the headline story from that game is that the Suns' Kevin Durant joined the elite 30,000 point club by making a free throw with 1:11 remaining in the third quarter. Durant finished with a game-high 34 points on 12-18 field goal shooting. Ja Morant scored a team-high 26 points as the Grizzlies improved to 36-17 while dropping the Suns to 26-27. The Grizzlies have the second best record in the Western Conference, while the Suns are fighting just to earn a berth in the Play-In Tournament; the Suns are yet another example of how the "Big Three" model of instant team building fails more often than it succeeds.
Durant is the 30,000 point club's ninth member, and the first new member since LeBron James became the eighth (and youngest) member in 2018, one year after Dirk Nowitzki joined. Before we reflect on Durant's excellent career, it must be emphasized that it is shameful that the NBA and its media partners call Durant the 30,000 point club's eighth member, ignoring the fact that Julius Erving scored 30,026 points. ABA numbers should be counted offiically by the NBA, just like the NFL officially counts AFL numbers. Erving was just the third player to score at least 30,000 points, and he was the first "midsize" (6-7 or under) player to accomplish the feat; nearly 40 years after Erving retired, the only other "midsize" players who have scored at least 30,000 points are Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant. Ignoring Erving's accomplishments and statistics skews the ubiquitous conversation about the greatest players of all-time; Erving is often left out of that discussion, but he deserves to be prominently mentioned. Erving starred in the ABA for five years before enjoying a spectacular 11 year run with the Philadelphia 76ers. He made the All-Star team in each of his 16 professional seasons, he never played for a losing or non-playoff team, and he is the only player to win an MVP award in both leagues. Erving won four regular season MVPs, three championships, and two Finals MVPs; he did a lot more than just score, but he was also one of the greatest, most consistent scorers of all-time, with scoring averages ranging from 20.0 ppg to 31.9 ppg in his first 14 seasons.
Durant is unlikely to join James in the 40,000 point club, but he has come a long way from being a skinny rookie who was played out of position at guard before blossoming in his second season after being shifted to his natural position of small forward. Durant spent his prime years at small forward but as his body developed and the league began favoring smaller lineups he became a devastating weapon at power forward, stretching the floor while not being afraid to attack the hoop. Durant had a high, loose dribble as a young player but he developed into an effective ballhandler. He did not average at least 4 apg until his sixth season, but he averaged at least 4 apg in each of the next 12 seasons. Durant won four scoring titles, and he posted two 50/40/90 seasons that exemplify how complete his scoring repertoire is: Durant is renowned as a midrange assassin, but he also posts up, drives to the hoop, drains three pointers, and not only draws fouls but shoots his free throws at an elite (.882) clip. Like Erving, Durant has an all-around game, and an impressive list of accomplishments, including two Finals MVPs, two championships, and one regular season MVP.
Six of the nine members of the 30,000 point club are in my Pantheon (an asterisk denotes that the player is in my Pantheon):
Pro Basketball's 30,000 Point Club
1. LeBron James* 41,623
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 38,387
3. Karl Malone 36,928
4. Kobe Bryant* 33,643
5. Michael Jordan* 32,292
6. Dirk Nowitzki 31,560
7. Wilt Chamberlain* 31,419
8. Julius Erving* 30,026
9. Kevin Durant 30,008
Labels: Dirk Nowitzki, Julius Erving, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Karl Malone, Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain
posted by David Friedman @ 3:25 AM
20 Comments:
It’s very impressive that Durant was able to play at an elite level after suffering injuries that could have forced him into early retirement. In his second to last season with the Thunder he suffered at Jones fracture in his right foot which I believe was similar to the injury that forced Yao Ming to retire and then he missed an entire season with a torn achilles, an injury that has forced numerous players into retirement.
I’m sure he’d rather be playing for a winning, contending team than reaching scoring milestones on a team that has been wildly disappointing but even if he never wins another ring or even never makes the playoffs again, Durant has had a historically great career that I would say is in the tier just below pantheon status.
weird dude; pristine work ethic and dedication to craft. narcissist joined GSW when he nearly beat them and won't shoot end-of-quarter heaves to protect FG %. weird mixture of qualities
Most players are at least willing to join better teams for a better chance to win and won't end-of-quarter heaves. I agree he's a weird dude, but these 2 things don't make him weird.
Anonymous:
I think that the previous Anonymous is suggesting that what was "weird" about Durant joining the Warriors is that in the previous playoffs his team enjoyed a 3-1 lead versus the Warriors. Instead of beating a team that he and OKC were clearly capable of beating, Durant fled OKC to join the Warriors.
You are correct that many players refuse to take end of quarter heaves. That is unfortunate but not "weird" in the sense of being unusual behavior for an NBA player.
Yes, both of these things I would say as unfortunate instead of weird. Most players would flee to supposed greener pastures I'd predict if given the choice making this more normal than abnormal. Sure, Durant/OKC were capable of beating GS, but the odds were that wouldn't have and much lower to win 2 titles. And even if they had, they'd still have to win the Finals for the title.
In hindsight, Durant's legacy is much greater having won 2 titles and making 3 Finals with GS than not, whether right or wrong. Durant isn't any better or lesser of a player if he was on a lesser team than GS and not win any titles, but that's not how he'd be viewed overall. His legacy would be greater winning 1 title with OKC than 1 title with GS, but 1 title with OKC wouldn't be greater than 2 titles with GS. If he stays healthy in 2019, he'd most likely have 3 titles. And if he had stuck around with GS after 2019, he'd most likely have 4-5+ titles as the #1 guy. I think only Russell, Jordan, Magic, Duncan, and James can say that.
Anonymous:
Championships are an important and inevitable part of the legacy conversation for any great player, so I agree that Durant enhanced his legacy by winning two championships with Golden State. However, I think that the "weirdness" topic is a little different than the legacy topic. A person with a different mindset than Durant could have preferred to win a title with the team that drafted him and was good enough to win as opposed to winning by joining a rival team that had already won a title without him.
Other players "could" have won four or five titles if things had broken differently, so I am not interested in speculating about what might have happened had Durant stayed healthy and stayed with GS. Part of his story is that he has gotten injured, and another part of his story is that he has more than once become dissatisfied with his current team, so I am not sure that there is a universe where Kevin Durant stays healthy and stays with one team.
What data is there that many/most players won't go for end of qtr heaves? Not my observation. Also people overlooked the elements of praise is my comment; why? And why is "weird", in that context of a mixed commentary, interpreted by others as derogatory? -- 1st Anonymous
Also he betrayed Brooklyn by having them pay big for his injury recovery year (no playing), then demanding out early on the same deal. That wasn't "weird", but wrong. -- 1st Anon again
Anonymous:
I don't know if there is formal or official data about how often players avoid taking end of quarter heaves, but if you regularly watch NBA basketball you will see that this is common--to the extent that announcers often mention, "Yeah, he made sure to not release the ball until just after the buzzer sounded." Also, Shane Battier once admitted that the one kind of selfish play that he did during his career was not take last second heaves because such shots would impact his FG% and potentially hurt him during contract negotiations.
Regarding Durant asking out early, he is one of many players who have engaged in this unfortunate practice.
Anonymous, nobody overlooked anything. We agree he has an excellent work ethic. I disagreed with your other comments, which I still do. David also agrees refusing to take end-of-quarter heaves isn't weird. Obviously there's no stat for this. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen often. Not sure if anyone took them as derogatory but you listed 2 criticisms, so what else would calling someone a narcissist along with another criticism not be viewed as derogatory? The very definition of derogatory is being critical.
Sure, someone different than Durant could've stayed with OKC and potentially won one title with OKC, but I'd speculate he wouldn't have. I do think speculation is important. That's how we rate players from one era to players from different eras. One title team could be 1st round fodder in different seasons. But, I see where speculation could get bogged down too much. But, Durant doesn't become a better player just because he wins 2 titles with GS than if he was another team those seasons and doesn't win. But since he did win 2 titles, he's elevated higher in the mythical best player of all time rankings. Or his team loses in the 2nd round in 2021 to Milwaukee(eventual champions) even though he was the best player in that series.
(different Anonymous)
Back in 2016 GSW were actually very vulnerable. Yeah, they were the reigning champions and they went 73-9, but those playoffs exposed it very clearly -- OKC really should have beaten them, and then the Cavs actually did. Because that team lacked size and physicality, which is critical in the playoffs. And later on it would lack it even more as Bogut left.
Also, in retrospect, the 2015 finals were likely decided by Cleveland's injuries.
So as great as it was to watch the Warriors in those years, OKC had a real shot at beating them in the subsequent seasons. That series could have been viewed as Durant and Westbrook's equivalent to Jordan and Pippen having to learn how to get past the Pistons for two years in the WCF before finally establishing a dynasty.
But Durant bailed out.
And then he did it again -- in retrospect it hurt both him and the Warriors to leave in 2019. Less so the Warriors as they still won another championship later on. He could have stayed and won several more, as the main guy, and then those two easy rings in 2017 and 2018 would be viewed much more positively. Because right now most people still don't realize who the main player on that team was, they think it was Curry with Durant just tagging along (whoever actually remembers the key games knows the truth). But as I said above, Curry without Durant likely retires with just one ring. Had Durant stayed to win several more, that illusion would have been dispelled. You see how he has declined much more slowly than Curry, even with the injuries, which is expected due to the size difference and him not relying on speed to score.
Anonymous:
Very well put. Durant had a chance to take a challenging path to greatness by teaming with Westbrook to beat GS, but instead Durant chose to join GS. As you correctly noted, he was GS' best player during those two championship runs but we all missed out on seeing potentially classic GS-OKC playoff matchups.
You are also correct that size tends to be advantageous not only during competition but also in terms of durability. Durant is a greater player than Curry, but most casual observers either don't understand that or stubbornly refuse to admit it.
I think a defining aspect of our society now is that we can take absurd behavior and call it "normal," because others find it normal. all the knights of the keyboard now say that it's not "weird" for a professional basketball player -- making literally HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars -- to refrain from taking small acts that give his team the best chance to win each game (end-quarter heaves), so as to aggrandize personal stats??? I don't care how many of you agree with yourselves; it's very weird. What's even weirder is that the league won't keep a new stat to exclude heaves from shooting %, so as to accurately fix the statistical issue that is distorting play. The goal of playing a bball game is to win; and when you get paid hundreds of mill, the goal is that much more important. I don't care how many other players do the same; it's still weird. -- 1st anon
Hypothetically, is there anything Curry can (or has) done over the rest of his career that would tempt you to ultimately rank him above KD even if you feel KD was superior during their time together? Or is the gap insurmountable regardless of Curry's pre-KD Finals runs, later defensive improvements, 2022 title, and any future successes he might have, or at some point does the totality of his achievements start to make up for KD having the higher pinnacle?
I guess this is kind of the junior varsity version of the Shaq (higher peak) vs. Kobe (longer prime, more accomplishments) or Wilt (higher peak) vs. Russell (way more accomplishments) debate, but obviously enough differences in the situations that the conclusions may not align along those lines.
@Anonymous at 14:
Those analogies do not work because even Steph's peak was never as good as KD's peak.
The problem has always been the same -- Steph is too small. And in the playoffs that is decisive. This is not to take away anything from his shooting skills, he is the all-time best shooter, no questions. But that does not change the objective physical reality of what it takes to win in the playoffs.
Go back to the 2016 finals -- that was absolute peak Curry, but what happened? He was pocketed in the key moments. And they got to the finals in the first place only because against OKC Klay did miracles when it was all on the line.
Curry has shined only when there is a very good team around him that can buffer that physicality disadvantage, and even then only on some occasions.
The version of Curry that drops 40-50 points on amazing 3-pt shooting? That has never been seen consistently game after game deep into the playoffs. Only exception I can think of is against Portland in the WCF in 2019. Durant was out then. But it was an exception proving the rule because that was Portland starting two even more undersized and weaker defensively guards.
Meanwhile Durant averaged 35 PPG in the finals in 2017 against a full-strength Cavaliers team with still close to peak Lebron on it, and he actually outplayed Lebron one-on-one. Defensively too.
That is the difference. The seven-footer with the great shooting touch will just score over people whenever he wants, and, because he is a seven-footer, he will play decent defense just by trying, without even being specifically very good at it. Meanwhile the 6'2''-6'3'' lightweight guard well be shut down by physical bigger defenders if they really try hard and there is little he can do about it. Because physics.
If your team needs 40-45 points from the star player, is the competition capable of preventing him from scoring that many? With Curry it was repeatedly done very successfully, even in his absolute prime. Not so much with KD, his pre-GSW playoff failings were due to other issues.
If 2016 GS is vulnerable, then every team in history is vulnerable, so unnecessary to even say that. If OKC should've beaten them when healthy, then they actually should've beaten them. CLE was lucky to beat them and CLE wasn't the better team. Yes, Green is a bonehead and got suspended but his suspension was a aggregate of the entire playoffs. If both teams meet before the Finals, Green is able to play the entire series. GS was the better team regardless, but the better team doesn't always win.
In 2015, Iggy(GS's 4th best player at best) outplays James(CLE's best player by far) in the Finals, so no, the 2015 Finals weren't at all determined by CLE's injuries.
Sorry to say, Durant/Westbrook weren't close to the equivalent of Jordan/Pippen.
It's not weird when it's the norm. And it has like 0.001% chance of dictating the outcome of games. Sure, should you shoot before the buzzer. Nobody is saying differently, but it doesn't really change anything in the end. And we don't need new stats made up just because something is done or not done.
Other anonymous, KD has been so much better than Curry there's really not much discussion between the two. Take Curry off of 2017/2018 GS, and KD still wins both titles. Take KD off both those teams, Curry wins 1 title at most and probably not even that.
I disagree Shaq's highest peak is higher than Kobe's highest peak. And Russell only has more accomplishments(more titles if that's what you mean) since he had much better teammates/coaches than Wilt. Wilt absolutely destroyed Russell H2H. When Wilt during his latter years played a similar style of basketball as Russell did during his entire career of focusing on defense/rebounding/secondary scorer more, Wilt did it much better than Russell ever did.
Anon 15-
I'm Anon14 (but not 16), to clarify I mean that KD/Shaq/Wilt have the higher peaks while Steph/Kobe/Russell have the more successful/decorated careers, not that Steph had a higher peak than KD.
My question to David is less "why do you think KD is better," which he's covered extensively, and more "at what point, if any, does a totality of achievement outshine a higher peak value?"
Anonymous:
I think that this is largely a semantic debate. Contrary to what you seem to be implying, no one here is justifying Durant's reluctance to take end of quarter heaves. His refusal to do so potentially harms his team and is thus suboptimal, but it is not "weird" in the sense of deviating from the norm, because many other players also are reluctant to take such shots.
I understand your point that Durant's personality includes a seemingly contradictory set of traits: he works hard on his game (which is good for his team), but he also does not take end of quarter heaves and sometimes he leaves good teams instead of trying to help those teams win.
Regarding what Curry would have to do to surpass Durant, one of the Anonymous commenters beat me to it: Durant has an inherent and significant advantage over Curry due to size, and as a result not only was Durant's peak value was much higher than Curry's, but Durant has maintained a higher level for a longer period than Curry. There is a very good reason that only one player shorter than 6-5 (Jerry West) is in my Pantheon: size is a major factor when ranking players if all other factors are equal or close to equal. West dominated at both ends of the court, and as a result he earned 10 All-NBA First Team selections. Other than Bob Cousy--who is underrated but who also played part of his career in the pre-shot clock era that is difficult to compare to the post-shot clock era--every other player who earned at least 10 All-NBA First Team selections was 6-5 or taller, and the next players on the list who are 6-3 or shorter are Chris Paul and Stephen Curry (four First Team selections each). The highest peak value combined with longevity playing at a high level are just unreachable for most relatively short players, and that includes Curry.
Post a Comment
<< Home