How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contender?

[JBH3]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

I agree. But it's much better than going by the, 'if he scores 25, then we win'.

I'm pretty sure I can find more issues with that than I can with the Win Shares.

Sorry. Someone with an intelligent point so I had to response. I'm out.

I said I was using that as an ILLUSTRATION to show he needs HELP.

Like 04-05 Lebron had, and Chris Paul and 2nd yr Kobe making his 1st AS appearance.

[nightcreeper]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

10 yrs

[OSUFan_88]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

The help you're touting that Durant has are Westbrook and Jeff Green.

A rookie and another 2nd yr player.

Lebron had a healthy 30 something Zydrunas, Carlos Boozer, and a Drew Gooden w/ at least 4 yrs under his belt.

Yet I'm the one not using any logic?

And now we're talking about 2 more wins. If he had an arbitrary two more wins you'd then consider him a franchise player.

Drew Gooden is and always will be awful, Z hasn't been a good player since 2006 and Boozer was in his 3rd year, I think, when he left. It's not like there is a huge talent gap between Durant's supporting cast and LeBron's.

LeBron's game is more conducive to help maximize his teammates offensive abilities than Durant is. Durant is also a much better scorer then LeBron was at his age.

You're trying to compare a playmaker with a scorer...and it's just not a good comparison.

[JBH3]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

Drew Gooden is and always will be awful, Z hasn't been a good player since 2006 and Boozer was in his 3rd year, I think, when he left. It's not like there is a huge talent gap between Durant's supporting cast and LeBron's.

LeBron's game is more conducive to help maximize his teammates offensive abilities than Durant is. Durant is also a much better scorer then LeBron was at his age.

You're trying to compare a playmaker with a scorer...and it's just not a good comparison.

I'm not trying to compare either player.

All I'm doing is trying to show Durant as being at much more a disadvantage than Lebron. I can't speak on MJs first couple of years because I was too young to have watched those.

Are you really going to tell me that Zydrunas in 04-05 is no better than:

Chris Wilcox, Nenad Kirstic, Nick Collison, or Jeff Green now.

Z was 3rd best among centers in scoring that year, and grabbed 8/gm w/ 2 blocks. There is NO low-post option on OKC.

Admit that your opinion of Z, Boozer, and Gooden are a bit skewed given you're a Cleveland-ite (especially Boozer).

And again...All of these guys that Lebron or MJ had were NOT 1st or 2nd yr players.

How that has been overlooked in comparing team success is beyond me.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

I'm not trying to compare either player.

All I'm doing is trying to show Durant as being at much more a disadvantage than Lebron. I can't speak on MJs first couple of years because I was too young to have watched those.

Are you really going to tell me that Zydrunas in 04-05 is no better than:

Chris Wilcox, Nenad Kirstic, Nick Collison, or Jeff Green now.

Z was 3rd best among centers in scoring that year, and grabbed 8/gm w/ 2 blocks. There is NO low-post option on OKC.

Admit that your opinion of Z, Boozer, and Gooden are a bit skewed given you're a Cleveland-ite (especially Boozer).

And again...All of these guys that Lebron or MJ had were NOT 1st or 2nd yr players.

How that has been overlooked in comparing team success is beyond me.

Z is better than any low post scorer OKC has. Gooden isn't and Boozer with the Cavaliers wasn't much better than any of those guys either.

On the flip side, Durant has a much better backcourt to work with in Green and Westbrook compared to Kevin Ollie/Eric Snow and...um...Ricky Davis and or other such assorted garbage like JR Bremer, DaJuan Wagner, and crap after that.

I'm saying that it isn't near as big a disadvantage as you think it is.

[JBH3]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

Z is better than any low post scorer OKC has. Gooden isn't and Boozer with the Cavaliers wasn't much better than any of those guys either.

On the flip side, Durant has a much better backcourt to work with in Green and Westbrook compared to Kevin Ollie/Eric Snow and...um...Ricky Davis and or other such assorted garbage like JR Bremer, DaJuan Wagner, and crap after that.

I'm saying that it isn't near as big a disadvantage as you think it is.

Lebron was avg'ing 7 dimes, and much of the offense was running through him so the backcourt wasn't even really an issue was it?

They had McInnis who was solid for his role too.

Given the massive bigs in the West, OKC not having anything to speak of in the post was MUCH MORE a detriment than Cleveland's so-called backcourt issues.

Would you agree?



and c'mon...Gooden is better than Kirstic, Wilcox, and Collison AT LEAST.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

Lebron was avg'ing 7 dimes, and much of the offense was running through him so the backcourt wasn't even really an issue was it?

They had McInnis who was solid for his role too.

Given the massive bigs in the West, OKC not having anything to speak of in the post was MUCH MORE a detriment than Cleveland's so-called backcourt issues.

Would you agree?



and c'mon...Gooden is better than Kirstic, Wilcox, and Collison AT LEAST.

I think Kristic and Wilcox are both good players. They won't be that anchor in the paint, but they are very serviceable. Drew Gooden and Nenad Kristic are on about the same level, IMO. Wilcox is a much better defender and rebounder.

And despite what you say about LeBron dropping dimes, his backcourt was toxic. He was basically playing three on five for the majority of the game, until the end when it was one on five. I don't think you quite have a full grasp of how bad Eric Snow was in Cleveland. And the Cavaliers haven't had a starting caliber SG until this year with Delonte West.

On the flip side, while OKC doesn't have a low post scorer, they have Russell Westbrook, who can pass and drive to the hole very well, Watson, who can pass and shoot pretty well for a back up, and Jeff Green, who is a very good 6th man and decent starting shooting guard.

Again, like I said before many times, Durant might have a team that isn't as good as Cavaliers were, but it's not like the Cavaliers would have been runaway favorites. It's very close.

[JBH3]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

DICE - and we're talking about 2008-09 win totals and Wilcox was dealt at the deadline too...Forgot about that one too huh.

Which only FURTHER decreases OKCs chances for wins.

OSU I know you have a mal-content for Drew Gooden and Carlos Boozer, but you can't get past the career averages in determining who's the better player.

Wilcox: 9 & 5
Gooden: 12 & 8

Kirstic: 11 & 6
Z: 14 & 8

Boozer: 15 & 10 in 2003-04

Russel Westbrook shot 39%, and had the 3rd highest T/O per gm avg w/o the assist totals of Deron Williams or Steve Nash.

He was very much a DETRIMENT to the team, so if anything the plusses you point out don't outweigh the minuses and it's a wash.

Edit: Jeff Green plays the 4 BTW and not the 2, and is last among starting 4's in double doubles.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

Wilcox: 9 & 5
Gooden: 12 & 8

And Gooden also played a little less than zero minutes per game on the defensive end.

Kirstic: 11 & 6
Z: 14 & 8

I won't debate this. Z was and probably still is better than Nenad.

Boozer: 15 & 10 in 2003-04

Pretty good year for him, never said he wasn't a good player, just that he is very much absent on the defensive end.

Again, I think you think I'm saying the Thunder are a better team than that Cavaliers team. I'm saying the Cavaliers are likely a better team than the one the Thunder produced this year, but it's very close.

Russell Westbrook: 15&5

Jeff McInnis, who was acquired mid year 11&7

Jeff Green: 16pts & 6 RBDS

Eric Williams: 9 pts & 3 RBDS

So yeah, I'd say it's pretty darn close in a team vs team matchup.

[JBH3]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

Again, I think you think I'm saying the Thunder are a better team than that Cavaliers team. I'm saying the Cavaliers are likely a better team than the one the Thunder produced this year, but it's very close.

Russell Westbrook: 15&5

Jeff McInnis, who was acquired mid year 11&7

Jeff Green: 16pts & 6 RBDS

Eric Williams: 9 pts & 3 RBDS

So yeah, I'd say it's pretty darn close in a team vs team matchup.

Well exactly how close?

04-05 Cavs vs 08-09 OKC

Turnovers
Cavs = 1141 13th
Thunder = 1330 (worst in NBA)

FG%
Cavs = 15th
Thunder = 26th

Total Rebounds
Cavs = 3469 (14th)
Thunder = 3496 (6th)
*A difference of 27 rebounds for OKC

Both teams bottom 5 in 3pt shooting

FT%
Cavs = 75%
OKC = 78%

Steals
Cavs = 9th
OKC = 13th
CLE had 46 more

PTS
CLE = 17th
OKC = 24th

-Opponents shot 47% on OKC vs 45% on CLE.
-OKC 20th ranked D, CLE 12th.
-CLE 1.41 opp T/O %, OKC 1.30

So what did OKC do better? Offensive rebound, because they missed way more shots than CLE.

CLE was a +0.80 in scoring diff, OKC a MINUS 6.1.

Clearly it's not so close as you think.

So does that mean 2nd yr Lebron is that much better than 2nd yr Durant?

-OR-

Did 2nd yr Lebron have a much better supporting cast?

Since his other top two performers were not a rookie and another 2nd yr player, and his team wasn't gutted the year prior.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

LeBron was a much better player.

[JBH3]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

LeBron was a much better player.

There numbers were about the same w/ Durant having a lot less assists, but only one less steal and rebound per gm.

Durant was far better from the stripe and 3pt line too, and got his 25 ppg in 3 less mpg than Lebron's 27.

If anything it's a wash. Why wouldn't it be?

Because of 6 more assists/gm?

And the fact that Lebron's team was better AND in the East was the reason for better team success after his 2nd yr.

How can anyone look past a +0.80 scoring diff, and -6.10 scoring diff and determine that because of one player Cleveland was more successful?

When you then look at both players numbers it's pretty much a wash.

Give your Cavs a little more credit than you'd like.

[PrettyT11]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

I'm sorry but it is pretty easy to see that LeBron was the better player. It goes past just the numbers but LeBron's numbers where better. You can't just disregard the assists and say it's because he had a better cast. That in itself shows that Lebron made for plays for his team and contributed more to thier wins.

LeBron has made his teamates better from DAY ONE and is still doing so to this day. I don't think anyone can make a argument showing how Durant makes his teammates any better. Right now Durant is a top level scorer but that is it. He doesn't really make any plays for his teammates. Scoring is pretty much all he brings to the table. LeBron not only brought the scoring to the table but he also made it alot easier for his teammates to score as well. Without LeBron that team would have won around 17 games again like they where before LeBron. It is FAR from anything close to a wash when comparing the two players at the same stage.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

There numbers were about the same w/ Durant having a lot less assists, but only one less steal and rebound per gm.

Durant was far better from the stripe and 3pt line too, and got his 25 ppg in 3 less mpg than Lebron's 27.

If anything it's a wash. Why wouldn't it be?

Because of 6 more assists/gm?

And the fact that Lebron's team was better AND in the East was the reason for better team success after his 2nd yr.

How can anyone look past a +0.80 scoring diff, and -6.10 scoring diff and determine that because of one player Cleveland was more successful?

When you then look at both players numbers it's pretty much a wash.

Give your Cavs a little more credit than you'd like.

It has a lot more to do than just LeBron v Durant though.

It goes to coaching. For as bad as Paul Silas was, at least he was NBA quality...kinda.

I'm trying to think of the head coach for the Thunder...Carson or something. Scott Carson maybe? In any case, they haven't had a real system there for the past two or three years. When they hired PJ, they basically said "Go outscore the other team" but then gave them no talent to get out and run. Silas had somewhat of a defensive mind about himself and taught his players to play defense.

So yes, I think LeBron was a better player at his age than Durant. I think if Durant had an NBA quality head coach, then he could probably look very comparable to LeBron, not completely overshadowed at that age. I guess to summarize, the difference between talent of the two teams is negligible, but the coaching of the two teams was vastly different.

The Thunder need to hire an NBA coach asap.

[Cebby]

Re: How Many Years You Think It'll Take For The Thunder To Be A Championship Contende

Has anyone said that Durant is better than Lebron?

When I left, I was saying that the Cavs were much better than the Thunder.

Z and Boozer were quality starters and Gooden and Ricky Davis were at least decent.

The only decent players that Durant has played with were 2 rookies and one in his second year.