I used simple stats. Durant scored 2000 more points in 4 years than MacGrady scored in his first 5 years. He's on pace to be the youngest ever to 10k points. You used advanced stats, which isn't really simple, is it? Only a moron would call PER and ws/48 simple stats, and total points scored irrelevant. EDIT - how does pointing out Durant's incredible start to his career make me a "fanboy", and where did I say anything about him is "certain"? Only a moron would read that in any of my Durant posts.
so just to be clear your argument is "he haz moar pointz!" ? its plain to see that mcgrady was the better player through age 22, and is virtually guaranteed to be so through their age 23 season. if you care to debate im all ears, but i have a feeling you are going to instead try to insult me and make this personal
Also of bearing on this smaller debate thread, McGrady was considered an excellent defensive player through the early part of his career (though that faded as he took on more and more of the team's offensive load and injuries began to creep in) while Durant is merely passable defensively.
A guy who came off the bench for three of those years is clearly better than Kevin Durant? Plus, Durant has been All-NBA 2x in his first 4 years; MacGrady was All-NBA 2x in his first five years. Durant also led Team USA to a world championship by averaging a record ppg, and recently scored 40+ points in a Game 7. Has MacGrady yet even won a playoff series in his career? Durant also has taken 2nd in MVP voting; the best MacGrady finished was 4th, primarily because his team was basically .500. Wasn't it you who started the "only a moron" line of reasoning? Poor you, always the victim. Anyhow, what is there to debate? I value points and wins; you value PER from a bench player and ws/48. I think Durant has had a better start to his career than MacGrady. Throw in that MacGrady joined a 41-41 team with Darrell Armstrong and Ron Mercer the two leading scorers, and by age 23 had improved that team to a whopping 42-40. MacGrady was a stat beast who didn't improve his team. The same can't be said for Durant, can it?
That's absurdly silly. Look at the roster of the Magic that year: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ORL/2003.html And bear in mind that that Grant Hill was in the midst of his career-changing injury woes. Take McGrady off that roster and you have potentially the worst team in NBA history. The fact that he pulled that horrific roster to above .500 shows that he improved the team greatly. Blaming McGrady for Orlando's front office being terrible at putting talent around him isn't a good argument.
intangables!! having another all nba player on the team helps win games last i checked i said "only a moron would even suggest such a thing".....do you disagree? really? and i apologize, i didnt think you were one of those "moar pointz!" guys...and winning trumps all? i think mcgrady and durant and lebron all have the same number of rings... so you must love westbrook then huh?
A team with Darrell Armstrong, Ron Mercer, Chucky Adkins, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, and John Amechi being the top 5 scorers went 41-41. MacGrady "improved" that team by 1 win in his 30.2 PER season. I'm not sure what this debate is about, though, at this point. MacGrady is one of the biggest underachievers in NBA history, based on his start, and I do realize injury was a big part of it. I suppose the point was to show Durant could end up the same way? I've already ceded that point; I just find it more likely, based on other players with similar starts to his career, that Durant will end up an all-time great.
and yes papag, i always play the victim, in fact ive just called my lawyers and notified ed o's employer
A team that had only one other player, who played in more than 30 games, with a PER above 15 finished above .500. Pretty amazing that McGrady was able to accomplish that. Imagine if he had had more than one teammate above average. Just that there are many pitfalls between elite start to a career and an elite overall career. I think very very few players are so talented that they are likely, after only a few years to judge from, to finish as an inner circle Hall of Famer. I do think that, barring injury, Durant will probably be a Hall of Famer. But likely to have a Jordan-like career? No. And I think even a Stockton/Barkley like career is below 50% though definitely a significant possibility.
Well, Stockton accumulated a lot of stats by longevity. While he was a great NBA player, the fact that the all-time assist and all-time steals leader isn't considered one of the top five players ever kind of proves that point.
Raw stats don't tell the story, I agree. Which is why I also don't think Durant's total points to a certain age tells the story. Stockton fashioned his greatness from being fantastic for an incredibly long time. He wasn't Pete Rose...a pure accumulator who was only sometimes really good. Stockton was generally a true great. But he was never dominant like a Magic Johnson or Oscar Robertson, the two top point guards of all-time in my view.
what player atop all time leaderboards did so without longevity? btw he could have retired at 34 with the assist record, but he had 6 more years of 21+ PER up his sleeve. i think the reason alot of people dont respect his game more is because he didnt "score moar bukketz!" even though he shot .515 over his career not saying he was top 5, him and durant have an identical career PER of 21.8, good for 31st all time...still less than mcgradys 22.4 though
I think it's a pretty safe bet at this point to project Durant as a hall of famer ... regardless of how he stacks up directly against McGrady, Jordan, et al. Hell the fact that you can even begin to argue about where he ranks against them tells a you a helluva lot about what kind of player he's been so far. Anyway, what does this have to do with Greg being a bust so far?
Nothing. Durant is an awesome talent regardless of what Oden does or does not accomplish, and I thought so at the time of the draft. It does, however, matter when it comes to the silly and lazy comparisons to Bowie vs. Jordan. Oden is far better than Bowie and Durant is not nearly as good as Jordan. That doesn't mean Oden can't be a bust, just that the comparison is invalid (all the more so when you consider the logic behind why Bowie was selected ahead of Jordan).
they are pretty much tied to the hip forever, heres hoping greg makes it a little less one sided (while he plays for portland)
I wanted Oden to be the pick, but there is no reason they both can't end up great players for the teams who drafted them, eh?
you are talking my language! haha, i still have high hopes for oden, you may say im a dreamer, but im not the only one
