Well, I disagree in that Barkley played in a day where you could be very physical in the post. Besides, is it Durant's fault that he is 6'10" and can score from the perimeter by creating his own offense? Durant is a freak, and I just laugh at people who try to pooh-pooh him in order to make Oden seems like a less-disastrous pick.
I disagree about that. In terms of all-time greats, Stockton is actually an outlier, in that he wasn't a great NBA player his first three years. LeBron, Jordan, Durant, Bryant after his first year, Barkley, etc., were all elite players very early in their careers. I'll add Chris Paul and Dwyane Wade to the list as well. Paul might be the one who just ends up "very good", due to his injury troubles. The odds are longer for CP3 than Durant, IMO.
I'm not saying that elite careers don't tend to get off to elite starts. (You're right about that, and that Stockton is an aberration.) I'm saying that elite starts don't always result in elite careers. Ed O.
Yeah, that was a dumb statement from a young GM who was overly excited about getting the #1 pick. He'd probably still have a job had he picked Durant, and Presti and Cho would have been fired from the Sonics/Thunder a few years ago.
Ah, got it. I think you're undervaluing how important it is to get off to a great start in a career. At the top of the youngest to 10k list, all are considered great players. James, Bryant, Wilt, Kareem The odds seem to be in Durant's favor, IMO. If he isn't considered an all-time great, it will be an outlier.
AHEM... Any list without LaRue Martin as the #1 spot is pure bullshit. AHEM.. let's argue about that instead of re-arguing over Durant.
It's hard for me to be upset about a pick from 1972, especially considering it was a crapshoot whether the player would end up in the NBA or the ABA. That entire draft, outside of Bob McAdoo, was fairly terrible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_NBA_Draft
I think almost no player has so much talent that he's a "good bet" (i.e. higher than 50% chance) to be an inner-circle Hall of Famer. Durant's elite start certainly makes him one of the best current bets, but he's still probably at a lower 50% chance to end up with a total career as great as Stockton's. And he's definitely no Jordan. He may have more career totals than Jordan at the same age, since he entered the NBA earlier, but he hasn't yet come even close to young Jordan's dominance. His total PER, for example, is lower than Jordan's from ages 21 to 22 and Jordan was about to embark on almost unprecedented numbers starting in his age 23 season. Durant's PER actually declined significantly this past seaon, from about 26 to 23. Nothing suggests that Durant is about to rip off a completely historic tear of seasons. It's possible, but definitely very, very unlikely. That said, it's hardly pooh-poohing Durant to say he's not nearly as good as probably the greatest basketball player ever. I think Durant is a fantastic player.
I disagree. Players have only been coming out of college after their freshman year for 20 years or so. I think that the number of games played is important when considering statistics--moreso than age. Durant (as I said) is off to a fantastic start. He's been a great scorer. I don't think that it's likely he'll keep it up, and even if he did there's no Barkley and Stockton to go with his Jordan to justify Oden being a bigger bust than Bowie if we take into consideration opportunity cost (as the original content seemed to do in this thread). Ed O.
Durant's usage went down as well, while Westbrook's increased almost 6 points. OKC is going to have to make a decision on Westbrook, who was fairly terrible in the playoffs, and how he fits with Durant, who was better than in the regular season, despite having an even lower usage rate. What is amazing to me is that Westbrook has a career Ortg of 105, and a career Drtg of 108, was even worse in these playoffs, yet is seen by some posters here as the franchise player for OKC. I think OKC needs to trade him after this year if he can't figure out how to play with a clearly superior talent in Durant.
Yeah, Bowie is a bigger bust. Obviously. You pass on the GOAT, that's the price you pay. What's funny is that Hakeem would likely not have a title if Jordan hadn't played baseball for a year. Would Hakeem then be considered the "greatest" bust? By "greatest", I mean great player who actually was a bust only because of not winning a title, and because of Jordan winning 8 in a row?
I think Westbrook isn't close to the talent that Durant is, but he's pretty damn good. Before they ditch Westbrook, they should attempt to find a coach who can use both optimally. Of course, if they can find a good trade for Westbrook, they should be ready to do that. But it's hard to get equal value for a young star...the players of around his value are rarely available. Turning him into a group of lesser players probably will make them a worse team, as quality-for-quantity trades generally favor the team getting the quality. Of course, that doesn't mean it's impossible for such a trade to benefit the franchise but, as I said, I'd look at the coaching first.
I think if we win the coin flip, Phi Slamma Jamma's Portland Chapter has as many rings as MJ would've ended up with.
Quite possible. Olajuwon reached an NBA Finals way before Jordan did, but his team was beaten in 6 by a vastly superior Celtics team. Then the destruction by injuries of Sampson made Houston rather run-of-the-mill til they rebuilt in the '90s. Had Olajuwon landed on those Drexler Portland teams which, in real reality, came close to winning titles, Olajuwon probably puts them over the top in at least 2-3 seasons, if not more.
many careers start off amazing, only to derail (roy, to an extent cp3) remember when ken griffy jr was a shoe in to hit 800 homers? dwight gooden was the second coming of christ his first few years. etc, etc. all that means is nothing is a sure thing
Hakeem would have had his career in Portland impacted by injuries and/or age, though. Regards, Bill Walton Sam Bowie Arvydas Sabonis Greg Oden
I think the current no-handcheck rules are far more influential on the game than Barkley being physical in the post. They still allow superstars to be physical in the post, but taking away the handcheck made it very difficult to guard slashers. Also, I think the NBA protects superstars more than they did when Jordan, Stockton, and Barkley were rookies.
