Ric Bucher Likes OKC Over Blazers In A Few Years

You're mis-reading him. He said that Durant has a better chance of being a top-5/10 player and that being a top-5/10 player is a pretty good definition of being a superstar. He wasn't saying that that better chance makes Durant a superstar now, but that Durant has a better chance of someday meeting that definition of superstar than Roy does.

There are three claims implicit:

1. A "superstar" is a top-5 or top-10 players
2. Neither Roy nor Durant is one right now
3. Durant has the better chance of becoming one

 

Reminding those who argued vehemently against me is now saying I am calling myself "awesome".

You're a trip, Caravan.

 

As this thread has shown PapaG, it's all about perspective.

 

This is silly. And Minstrel originally made this point, and it was silly then.

To discuss the best current players (and note I'm not using the term "superstar" because that's an arbitrary label...even more arbitrary than a player rankings), it is simply outrageous to use the current performance of said players. And the best measure of current performance is performance in the current season.

Why would you look back 3 years instead of 5? And 3 instead of 30? Why isn't Shaq, T-Mac, Gilbert Arenas, et al? These guys over the last few years have been dominant.

 

Okay. A "top ten player in the game" then. We agree Roy is a top ten player this year. Whether that makes him a top-ten player in the game is different. Every night, there are top ten player for this night...that clearly doesn't make them all top ten players in the game. How long does one have to be a top ten player to be one of the "top ten players in the game?" A full season exactly (which Roy hasn't yet met)? A half season? A game? Three seasons? I'd say that's pretty up for debate.

 

any single season is indicative of that player's capabilities that season. this season is indicative of a player's current capabilities. being a top 10 player this season would mean that a player is currently a top 10 player.

and what about a season is so arbitrary? three seasons give you a good indication of how good a player was over a three season period. one season is a good indicator of how good that player was over that specific season.

 

Cheers back at you!

 

Why is the best measure of current performance the current season? Why not the current game? Why are you using a performance lag, which you feel is silly?

 

Because why not use the current month? What you choose for a sample size is entirely arbitrary.

 

When Ed started making his case, I thought he was being contrary, fringing on lunatic. But I see his stance now. Maybe a 2-year running average is a decent predictor (the league is very much a what have you done for me lately league, so going back much farther leads to irrelevance a bit). A next-year Roy at this level would definitely push him into the spotlight further. There's not too much more he can do by way of personal achievements (other than winning a playoff series) that would garner attention, so sustained performance has to be the key.

That said, if Batum defends Durant every night, Durant's in the D-League.

 

Oh, the Minstrel soft landing toward a compromise. Well played!

Roy is a solid Top 10 player, NOW, in the NBA. Ed disagrees. How long can we go on in circles?

 

if roy is a top ten player this season, that makes him currently a top ten player in the league. would you disagree with that?

 

Based on stats. So where does that put Z-Bo when he's healthy?

 

do they give out new championships every month? using a season as the sample size isn't arbitrary at all. seasons are what everything in basketball is based on.

 

I guess unlike you, I will answer your question.

Using the current season provides enough data points where the variability in one's performance can be appropriately averaged.

Using the last ten years of data to approximate these performances allows for too much change in said player's performance. For example, considering Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Tim Duncan (not yet... but soon IMHO) as CURRENT top 10 players fails to account for the drop in their performance recently. Using just the current season helps ignore these drops, as a player's decline is hardly noticeable over a few months rather than a few years.

 

I have to say that it is a bit weird that 2/3 of our "Producers" are challenging Blazer fans for daring to thing that 7th-best scorer and 2-time All-Star Brandon Roy is a top 10-player in the NBA. I mean, it's not like his team is 5th in point differential right now.

Of course, neither of the two live in Portland. Does that matter?

 

Based on what? Roy has shown improvement in each of his three seasons in the league. Why do you consider this season a "fluke" for Roy, but not Durant? What has Durant proven that Roy hasn't?

Even though Roy is statistically superior to Durant at this point in time, I don't think that's the biggest Roy is/will be a superstar. Roy has proven he can win at this level. Durant hasn't. There's your "track record".

Roy has lead his team to significantly more wins in each of his three seasons in the league. Where has Durant led his team? Back to the lottery, that's where.

Roy's team won 11 more games his rookie year than the season before. Durant's team lost 11 more games his rookie year than the season prior. Roy's 2nd season, the Blazer won 9 additional games. Durant's 2nd season isn't over, but his team will be lucky to win 4 more games (25 wins vs. 41 wins for the Blazers in Roy's 2nd season) than during his rookie year. In his 3rd season, Roy is leading the Blazers to 50-plus wins. In his 3rd season, will Durant's team finally break 30 wins? It's yet to be seen.

BNM