Forget LeBron, is CURRENT DURANT better than Kobes ever been?

[SpecialQue]

Stephen se puso de pie y se acerc

[SilkkTheShocker]

All I know is that LeBron is better than both

[SpecialQue]

J.R.R.

[Young X]

No it's not. Which other highly regarded legend has a FG% as bad as Kobes?

Bill Russell has a low FG%, but he is overrated to begin with. His niche was defense anyway. Kobes niche is scoring, and he still puts up inefficient scoring numbers.

FG% doesn't measure overall scoring efficiency, you can have a high FG% and still be an inefficient scorer. Prime Kobe is NOT an inefficient scorer.

You're also underrating him as an overall player, one dimensional players don't average 30/7/6 or 27/6/5 for whole seasons.

[AirTupac]

Por n el centro de atenci

[SpecialQue]

In Bill Simmons' "The Book of Basketball" he devotes an entire chapter on the Russell-Wilt rivalry, and his "myths" on Chamberlain.

I have addressed them before in another thread, but I thought I would rehash a couple of his falsehoods, of which there are MANY.

One point he makes is that Wilt was twice "traded for pennies on the dollar."

To understand the first trade, you need a little background info first. Wilt came to the Philadephia Warriors in a territorial draft. What is that you ask? In the 50's the NBA owners decided that to help keep up local fan base interest, that they would allow owners to lock in a player if he were more of a "local" favorite. I won't get into the rules, which were somewhat complicated, and it is unneccessary for this topic anyway. In any case, Chamberlain, being from the Philadelphia area, and still in high school at the time, was "locked in" by the Philly ownership group. Remember, he was in HIGH SCHOOL. So, he was WAY ahead of his time in terms of those that supposedly broke the barriers of jumping right to the NBA out of high school. Of course, at the time, a player still had to go to college, or at least had to wait until his class would have graduated before he could play in the NBA.

BTW, for those that may have read Red Auerbach's many blistering attacks on Wilt (i.e. that he wasn't a team player, or that he was only stats conscious, etc.) how about this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain



So Wilt joined the Warriors in the 59-60 season, a team that had been in LAST PLACE just the year before. BTW, in his first game, Chamberlain put up a 43 point, 28 rebound, 17 block game. I always get a kick out of those that try to compare players like Kobe or Lebron on the "first to get to xxx points"...because, had Chamberlain been allowed to play in the NBA right out of high school, there is no doubt that he would have added several thousand more points and rebounds to his career totals.

How big was Wilt for the NBA. His team set attendance records everywhere he went. Why is that important? Because following Wilt's staggering 61-62 season, the Philly ownership sold the team to a group based in San Francisco. Why? Because they were offered $850,000 for it, which was considerably more than the $50,000 that they had paid for it orginally. Keep that figure in mind, too, because I will bring it up later.

Chamberlain's Warriors relocated to the West Coast, but not all of the players joined him. HOFer Paul Arizin, already in his 30's, decided to retire. And the Warriors also shipped off their other HOFer, Tom Gola (who is perhaps near the very top of the WORST NBA HOFers of all-time.)

In any case, the Warriors had perhaps the worst roster in NBA history. They had a total of 16 different players on that roster, and some five of them would only be in the NBA for a short stint. Some posters here will point out that Wilt had two "all-star" teammates in that 62-63 season, in Guy Rodgers and Tom Meschery, but the reality was, those two were no more thanabove average, at best players. To be sure, Rodgers was a great passer, and would lead the league that year in assists...but unfortunately, he shot way too much. And, in comparing his FG% against the league averages, he may very well have been the WORST shooter in NBA history. He even had one season in which he shot nearly 100 points BELOW the league average. Meanwhile, somehow Meschery made the all-star team in that 62-63 season, with a 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and .425 FG%, but it would be his ONLY all-star appearance. And even with those ordinary stats, he was still SF's second best player. And, the fact was, both of those guys would have been sitting at the very END of the Celtic bench in that 62-63 season...a team that boasted NINE HOFers (AND a HOF coach, as well.)

Chamberlain had an extraordinary season in 62-63. In fact, in terms of statistical domination, it may very well have been the greatest in NBA history. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories. He ran away with the scoring title, at 44.8 ppg (Baylor was next at a distant 34.0 ppg.) He led the NBA in rebounding at 24.3 (on a team that only grabbed 58 per game.) And he set a FG% mark (at the time...that he would break THREE more times) at .528. Keep that figure in mind, as well, because I will bring that up in a moment. And, despite his team only putting up a 31-49 record, Chamberlain ran away with the advanced stat of Win Shares, at 20.9. Thinks about that for a moment...Wilt was directly responsible for 67% of his TEAM's wins. BTW, for the advanced stat geeks, Chamberlain also recorded a PER of 31.8, which is the all-time record.

Once again, though, Wilt's teammates were just AWFUL. I mentioned Wilt's record-setting .528 FG%. However, his teammates collectively shot just .412 without his percentage....which would have been WAY below gthe worst team in that category, which was at .427. Still, that 31-49 record was somewhat deceptive. Their differential was only -2.1 ppg. They lost 35 games by single digits. And they were only involved in eight games of 20+ margins (and only one of 30), and they went 4-4 in those games. BTW, they only went 1-8 against the champion Celtics, but six of those games were very close...and Wilt averaged 38 ppg against Russell in those nine games...including one game of 50.

How bad was that roster? After that season, the Warriors brought in a new head coach, Aex Hannum, and one of his first orders of business was to see just what kind of a roster that he had inherited. He scheduled a scrimmage with that roster, sans Chamberlain, against rookies and undrafted players. And, he was shocked when the Warriors lost the game.

Even more remarkable, was the fact that Wilt would take that cast of clowns to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and to the Finals, where, despite Wilt outscoring Russell by a 29-11 margin per game, and outrebounding him by a 27-25 margin per game, the Celtics, and their NINE HOFers (Wilt had ONE other HOF teammate...rookie Nate Thurmond, who played part-time, out of position, and shot .395), won a couple of close games en route to a 4-1 series win.

[SpecialQue]

En Bill Simmons "The Book of Basketball" le dedica todo un cap

[PickernRoller]

[QUOTE=SpecialQue]J.R.R.

[SpecialQue]

Las historias de Camelot siempre han sido una mierda en mi opinion ignorante.

Eso es blasfemia.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Durant averaged 30+ on like 60 TS in the finals last year..

While his team got backdoor swept and decimated. Do you think a player having an all around game averaging those numbers would be on the losing team by that much? Durants got no man defense and average help.. Average playmaking ability.. Good rebounding kind of average when you consider he's 6'10+.

Kobe was elite in every aspect for a shooting guard. Because his individual skills gets compared to Jordan so much people lose sight.. Durant is not for a small forward.. Not even close.

Usually tpols is wrong about everything. But he makes a good point about Durant's lack of being a 2 way player. His perimeter defense is terrible. He couldn't even stick with Chalmers during the Finals. Thats why I don't why people think its certain OKC will start winning titles. Durant isn't a dominant player like his stats might suggest.

[PickernRoller]

Eso es blasfemia.

Mencioname una pelicula que valga la pena?

Se me olvidaba:

[Jacks3]

No it's not. Which other highly regarded legend has a FG% as bad as Kobes?

Are you retarded? Didn't I just tell you that FG% is useless?

Look at his TS% numbers. They're very good. More than comparable to most legends in history.

Kobes niche is scoring, and he still puts up inefficient scoring numbers.

Wrong.

If Kobe had scrubs around him for his entire career he'd be another Melo/Wilkins.

Except he's a far, far, far, far better player than either of them.

Wades problem isn't efficiency, its that he can't shoot.

It was a major problem in the Finals despite the fact that he shot almost 50% from the field. FG% means nothing. His TS% was 50.5%. That's HORRIBLE.

Give me the high FG% over the low FG% any day. There is no scenario where it would be beneficial to have a low fg%.

Give me the player who is MORE EFFICIENT PER POSSESSION, which is what TS% measures. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS. Get it though your thick skull. You can shoot a high FG% and still be terribly inefficient if you're not getting to the line or converting threes.

Deal with it.

[Jacks3]

FG% doesn't measure overall scoring efficiency, you can have a high FG% and still be an inefficient scorer. Prime Kobe is NOT an inefficient scorer.

You're also underrating him as an overall player, one dimensional players don't average 30/7/6 or 27/6/5 for whole seasons.

Exactly this. OP is a ****ing moron!

[SpecialQue]

Sin embargo, a pesar de hacer la final, la ciudad de San Francisco nunca se llev

[KG215]

Durant gives you a consistent 25-35 points every game on great efficiency, average at best man and help defense, average ball handling and playmaking capability, and his rebounding is average, maybe above average.

As an overall defender he's better than "average at best" at this point. I mean I know raw numbers don't tell the whole story, but he's a 1.5 SPG and 1.5 BPG SF, and this year his overall (off-ball and on-ball) defense was good, not just average. For his position, his rebounding is better than just average or above average.

I've seen Durant take over games with his scoring. I've also seen plenty of games where his scoring wasn't enough but his team could've won had they had better perimeter defense and a better run offense

Well, given the results the last 4 seasons, something he's doing is working. But we're talking about the current version of Durant....2013 Durant. He was more than just a scorer this year. Regular season and playoffs included, I think I missed 3 or 4 OKC games this year. He had games where he dominated with his scoring, and games where he dominated with his overall play. He was drastically improved as an all-around player this year (the version of Durant we're talking about), and all the basic/raw and advances stats show that.

KD doesn't get his offenses running smoothly like Kobe did. It's just westbrook going nuts and Durant hitting scores of long range shots in the midst of broken plays and sloppy execution.

Kobe, in his prime the gave you elite man defense, great help, great passing/playmaking, above average rebounding for a guard, and either, 20 something points on poor efficiency or 35-40+ on great efficiency. He's more up and down with his scoring but still contributed in other ways when it was down. And at its peak Kobe's scoring was deadlier and more dominant. Again, in his prime pre 09.

But honestly at his peak running an offense kobe was just better than Durant at controlling the flow.. Passing setting up teammates to start and unleashing at the end down the stretch or when his team got in holes. And he had a higher impact on the other end of the court as well.

I won't disagree with any of this in that Kobe, in his prime, was better at all of those things. But if we're focusing on just 2013 Durant (and what he'll probably be and improve upon going forward), the gap isn't as big as I think you think it is.

I'm not saying Durant right now is better than the best version of Kobe, because he isn't, but I think it's close. If we're ranking all the best single peak seasons in NBA history, both would be in the top 20. Kobe is probably in the top 15, but Durant is in the top 20 somewhere (probably in the 16-20 range), and there's not a huge gap in that regard.