Oden/Durant Debate

[Sex Panther]

Maybe this year, have not seen enough of them to really make this argument or refute it, so I will take your word for it. I would like to point that last year the Thunder were 5-3 when Durant did not play. They were 18-56 when he did.

Honestly, if you look at TS% - Durant is #2 on the team and his TS% is not much higher than Westbrook and Jeff Green. My opinion is that if the Thunder would go more to Westbrook on offense, and feature him - his TS% will be just as high as Durant's, if only by his ability to get into the lane and draw free-throws. Westbrook can score, Harden can have a bigger part in the offense, their other role-players are not offensive holes. They will probably not be over .500 - but I do not think they would be anywhere near where NJN is this year.

The nicest thing about Durant this year - is that his defense seems to be miles better than last year - so this year, I suspect we will not see the kind of on/off success against him that we saw last year - but I am going to argue that I find it hard to believe that that the Thunder will be as bad as NJN without Durant.

The jury is still out on your last statement. But watching all of the games this year, outside of Westbrook, this team is utter garbage. The ball movement is stagnant, its just pure isos, very few pick and rolls, no screens, essentially anti-basketball 101.

Last year's success without Durant was just a small sample size, but that streak was a combination of luck and Westbrook peaking at the right time.

And thats exactly my point. I mean, the only way to truly gauge a player's significance to the team is by simple observation. As much as stats prove something, you can't say they were better without him. You can't honestly believe (not saying you do) that they'd be a better team without Durant. Thats just ludicrous. I stand by my statement when I say they're as bad -- possibly worse -- than the NJ Nets without Durant.

 

[Sex Panther]

You're having a very difficult time distinguishing between facts and your opinion.

For example, there have been stats suggesting that the Thunder were better last year without Durant. Whether or not it is absolutely true, I don't know. But you can't deny that there are reasonable stats and facts to back up that position.

That may be so, but the statistics in which you rely so heavily on, have shown that the Cavaliers were 2-0 without Lebron a few years back (don't quote me on that, but I distinctly remember those events). Now, you can't honestly believe they were better, do you?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The jury is still out on your last statement. But watching all of the games this year, outside of Westbrook, this team is utter garbage. The ball movement is stagnant, its just pure isos, very few pick and rolls, no screens, essentially anti-basketball 101.

Last year's success without Durant was just a small sample size, but that streak was a combination of luck and Westbrook peaking at the right time.

And thats exactly my point. I mean, the only way to truly gauge a player's significance to the team is by simple observation. As much as stats prove something, you can't say they were better without him. You can't honestly believe (not saying you do) that they'd be a better team without Durant. Thats just ludicrous. I stand by my statement when I say they're as bad -- possibly worse -- than the NJ Nets without Durant.

I agree with what you say about Durant, but that team is not garbage. Green is underrated, Westbrook is developing nicely, Hardin looks like a keeper. With the cap space they will have this summer, just add a PF and they are going to very tough and a playoff team . . . if they aren't already.

But yeah, Durant is the leader of the team and a stud.

 

[drexlersdad]

That may be so, but the statistics in which you rely so heavily on, have shown that the Cavaliers were 2-0 without Lebron a few years back (don't quote me on that, but I distinctly remember those events). Now, you can't honestly believe they were better, do you?

i believe that love is the answer