I think the entire Durant decision is a study in human psychology...after 9 years of grinding, something had to change
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I asked KD directly about why his shoes went from $88 to $150.<br><br>“As humbly as I can say it, I’m not a $88 player.” <a href="https://t.co/V50ixqGA1F">https://t.co/V50ixqGA1F</a></p>— Nick DePaula (@NickDePaula) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickDePaula/status/750869001081802752">July 7, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Boom! Might have to rename splash brothers to splash family?!?!? Welcome kd! <a href="https://twitter.com/kron4news">@kron4news</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/warriors">@warriors</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/KDTrey5">@KDTrey5</a> <a href="https://t.co/9X3PRQtVVd">pic.twitter.com/9X3PRQtVVd</a></p>— Will Tran (@KRON4WTran) <a href="https://twitter.com/KRON4WTran/status/751044303393136640">July 7, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Welp. Gonna be a fun team to watch. Bringing back da' '80s superstar rosters. Need one of these in the East for balance.
For one, I'm not trying to convince you Barkley is MJ. Or Shaq. Or Duncan. I am pointing out that he didn't "fail" nearly the way you are implying... ESPECIALLY in comparison to some of the other greats that are viewed differently because they have a ring (or two). For two, in the series in question, he didn't lay an egg. He had some so-so games, but also a great game. For three, outside of those clear all-time all-time greats, and frankly outside of maybe just one or two players - MJ... who else (??) the # of players who have consistently been dominant every opportunity in the playoffs is obviously just that small group. I mean, Barkley's best chance to win in retrospect was 92/93 as they got to the Finals. And how did the get to the Finals? Well in Game 7 of the WCF against Seattle he put up a 44 point, 24 rebound game... his second 40 point game of that series. And then he performed very admirably in the 6 game loss to the Bulls. Kobe Bryant has **** the bed more than once in important playoff games. Lebron is famous (infamous??) for having done it regularly before late. Hakeem wasn't exactly stellar in Game 7 against the Knicks. 10-25, 10 boards (but non offensive)... but 7 assists and 3 blocks. His "Gamescore" of 17.7 is slightly better than Barkley's Game 7 score against the Rockets in the 95 series. In Game's 6 and 7 against Utah in the WCF in 94, Hakeem went 6-18 and then 9-19 from the field. In Game 7 he had 6 turnovers... but 7 blocks, 4 steals, 6 assists. Charles wasn't quite the 5 tool player Hakeem was, but when his shooting was off, as Hakeem's was in those examples, Charles also brought a lot other things to the game... and in all cases, more than the "superstars" of today tend to do (Lebron aside). Eg. Durant's Game 6 this year, which was just bad all around. Of course, one could go on and on and on cherry picking. Curry's 2.4 gamescore in game 1 of the Finals this year (yet GSW won), or his 5.1 gamescore in Game 7 of the Finals. Or hte clunkers in the Finals last year. Yet, you know Curry won't have that "non-ring winner" or frankly just "non-winner" label in his legacy. Kobe Bryant, in 2010 against the Celtics had a relatively horrible series, with his worst games of GameScores of 9.9 (in freaking Game 7), one of 12.9 and one of 17.4 ... yet you know what Kobe will be remembered for? His offensive genius and clutch play!!! lol I'm going to go on, because why not?? I mean its ludicrous to imply that every other all time great is flawless and hasn't had clunkers in important moments. So I will go on. Shaq... here's one. In 2000, in the WCF Finals (and frankly, these were the series that mattered back then, not the Finals), in Game 7 against the Blazers, Shaq was 5-9, 18 points, 9 rebounds, 5 assists, 4 turnovers. Oh, oh, oh, oh!!!! I forgot. CAN'T FORGET DIRK!!! So that magnificent championship ring he has!!! Where he put everyone on his back!!! Lol. Check out Game 4 and 6 of those Finals for him. Both wins by the Mavs. But horrible performances by Dirk. Game 4: 6-19, 21 points, 11 rebounds, 1 assist. Game 6: 9-27 (lol), 21 points, 11 rebounds. Yeah, it was all Dirk carrying that team, lol. You know what else Charles didn't have? He didn't have Phil Jackson. Or Pat Riley. Or super strong, amazing organizational cultures. This is super confusing. So you can have instances in big moments where you "choke" or you can't?? Because I've already gone through instances (above) where Barkley wasn't great, and where he was great. And, AGAIN, context. Is this a Barkley is better than MJ, or Shaq, or Duncan, or Lebron, or Hakeem argument? Absolutely not. It's putting Barkley in context though. Barkley vs. Dirk? Sorry, Ic an use the stat test or the eye test. The conclusion is the same. Scoring - Dirk slight edge Rebounding - Barkley big edge Defense - Barkley slight edge Playmaking - tie "Clutchness" - I'd actually give the edge to Barkley here, even though Dirk has a ring. Not only was Dirk not amazing that Finals, he had clunkers earlier in the playoffs, too. And that's before even mentioning his playoff performance his MVP year, which is laughable. Or Barkley vs. Garnett. Or Barkley vs. KD. Etc. So did Chuck. And Chuck led one team to the Finals. Lol. This is EXACTLY... EXACTLY the freaking point. In all of our ability to micro-analyze every play and every stat, we simultaneously have created a culture where if you have rings, that's all people remember, and if you don't, people think you're not clutch, or a choker. Again, give me Barkley as a closer and he'll do just as well if not better than Dirk. Show me a Dirk game where he performed better than Barkley in Game 7 of the WCF against Seattle in 92/93? I've already pointed out the many clunkers... in important moments, for Dirk. In Dirk's MVP year, his MVP year, his team won 67 games. And he finished that year in a Game 6 loss to the 8th seed with a 2-13 performance, 8 points, 10 rebounds, a 2.1 gamescore. PLEASE... PLEASE, find me one game where Barkley **** the bed like that? By the way, Dirk started that series with an almost as bad 4-16 performance, lol. Yes, correct. And I can only judge based on the facts. Maybe KD could stay in OKC, or go to Boston, and lead a team to a championship. We'll never know. Just as we'll never know how may rings Barkley would have had he joined the Bulls as a 27 year old (my guess... a lot!!!). What I will be able to say is that every team he was the alpha dog, even on team's that had the talent to get it done, Durant failed. Just like Barkley did, ultimately. Which doesn't make either player a bad player. They are both all time greats. But I'm definitely not going to elevate KD over Barkley if at the end of KD's career he has 3 rings. Well, definitely. This is well known. But I do think his point has validity here. His point isn't that you shouldn't go ring chasing. Basketball is the ultimate ring chasing sport. You simply can not win without other greats on your squad, preferably more than one. But I do think the nuance that he is alluding to, that Reggie Miller is alluding to, that Isiah is alluding to, that JVG is alluding to... isn't that KD is a bad dude, or should be "faulted" for this decision. They recognize the world looks to championship rings, that its incredibly hard in the NBA more than any sport to get one, and that teaming up with a team otherwise tailor made to get there makes sense in that regard. What they're saying, though, is KD has taken it to the extreme in a sense that has never before even been considered. It wasn't just that the opportunity to join MJ wasn't as readily available in the 90's, it's that nobody even thought about it. You didn't even have rumblings, or random crappy editorials saying "what if Barkley joined MJ and the Bulls, wouldn't that be something... they'd never lose!!" I am happy to agree to disagree, but I do appreciate the discussion and your post, especially since it highlights the "show me the hardware" culture that years later leaves a bigger lasting impression on most people than the actual facts of what happened. cheers!
I think there's a pretty big correlation between something not being possible and something not being considered. No one "considers" a rival American basketball league because it's essentially not practically possible at this point (or a rival American baseball league where it is literally not possible due to protected monopoly status). It's interesting to think about what fan-inspired "conventional wisdom" would be, about what pro atheletes should and shouldn't do, if true free agency had been the rule in major pro sports from the early days. I suspect we'd have seen a lot more players choose to play with other stars they like, in baseball, basketball and football, through the years. It's not terribly meaningful to say that, "Magic Johnson would never have done this," or "Oscar Robertson would never have done this," since they didn't have the control that players like LeBron James and Kevin Durant have, so we have no idea what they would or wouldn't have done (and Magic wouldn't have mostly because he was on a great team pretty much from the start, but that's neither here nor there). For example, in an alternate universe where the Bulls never quite get over the hump and the current incarnation of free agency existed in the 1990s, I could very easily see a frustrated Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley choosing to get together on the same team. Neither would have considered it "ball-less desire to take the easy way out" and more "taking control of their own destinies because they could."
I understand exactly what you're saying and this point. But we can only point to what the facts are. Just as I can't "REALLY" say is Hakeem better than Wilt, I can't really say what any of these guys would have done in today's world of $100+ million dollar contracts, shorter contracts, wide open free agency, huge endorsement deals, and superteam building. I can just point to the facts. And while they certainly didn't have that opportunity as readily available, it was at least feasible had someone forced it. But yeah, they didn't think to, partly because of how difficult it would be and how much they'd have to give up (especially money wise back then). But that's what happened, and because of that, it's molded who these guys were.... and their opinions today.
You can't fault him but I can. As a player, everyone wants to win. But for him to hop onto the bandwagon of a team he could have beaten is ridiculous. Sure they have to earn it first but they don't have to work hard to get it. A team that deep already and then you add in Durant just kind of ruins the NBA. There's no even ground. People will lose interest when a single team every year wins it. The only thing beating them is injuries. Durant is one of the best player today. He is more than capable to leading a team himself to win a championship. But he ran to the team that beaten him. You don't fault him because it's all about winning. But what's the point of being a winner when there's really no competition. Being a "winner" on a team that is far superior than the rest of the league is pointless. There's no competition to be consider a winner. This trend I think will ruin the NBA. Players will continue to team up and it will boil down to 2 teams playing for the finals. It's not about wanting to win is the problem. It's the choosing the easiest way to win is. Durant knows joining the Warriors will be a cake walk to win a championship. If that's how he wants to be remembered as then that's on him. But the NBA will no longer be the same. More and more players will believe it's okay to team up with each other and make the best team possible. I won't be surprise if one day all the all stars decides to play on a single team. Thank god the NFL season is coming up. At least with the NFL, there's competition and rivalries.
Like when Jordan got smacked by the Pistons over and over but he went home during the summer, trained his butt off and came back to smack the Pistons. Durant instead of going home and train his butt off and try to beat the Warriors next year, he just joins them. I guess it's easier to join the team that beat you instead of training hard to beat them next season.
Yes, he did. The reason MJ, Shaq and Duncan are viewed differently is because they have moments in their career where they elevated their games on the way to winning a title. Barkley does not. Not only does he not have those moments, but he has moments that you can point to where he didn't perform up to standards. Titles occur because of moments like that. Other players, Dirk included, have those moments which led to titles. Barkley doesn't. Barkley is not a failure, but he has failed to do what those players have done at some point in their careers. And it's not like he wasn't on teams that had chances to win. I'm not saying "point to the rings". I'm saying the rings are the byproduct of those guys elevating their games at some point. Particularly Dirk. He won a title by looking like the best player on the court in series with the likes of Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Bosh and Durant. He laid an egg in two of the Final 3 games, both at home, when his team needed 1 to win. He did not have so-so games in G5 and G7. He had bad games. I'm not arguing that Dirk was always dominant in the playoffs. He has choke moments on his resume too (see 2006 and 2007). I'm arguing that we have seen Dirk step up in a manner that Barkley never did. He and other champions have moments like that to point to, which led to titles. Barkley does not. And Barkley's best chance to win was in 94 and 95, when the league was wide open without Jordan and his team was up 2-0 and 3-1. The other players you mention also have those type of moments to point to where they stepped up and it led to titles. Charles was a dominant offensive player and rebounder that hurt his teams defensively. Considering his size, it's not surprising that he couldn't get it done come playoff time when the game slowed down and defense tightened up. If you are comparing him to Dirk, the main difference between him and Dirk is that Dirk's height allows him to be a better closer come playoff time than Barkley because even if you play great D on him he's a freaking 7 footer with a wet jumper and he can still score. On the flip side, you can get away with putting the likes of Horace Grant or Robert Horry on Barkley in the postseason. We have seen Dirk go H2H with Duncan, Kobe, and the Heat trio and come out on top, mainly because of his ability to score and close games. He's LIGHT years ahead of Barkley in that regard and the ability to take over games scoring, down the stretch, is arguably the hardest thing to find in basketball. And Curry didn't win the Finals MVP, players MVP and has had some saying he was overrated for two years. Because Kobe Bryant has multiple clutch moments on his resume outside of that series. If that were his only title you may have a point. He has 5 of them and has gone HAM plenty. Dirk had a fever in G4 and still scored 10 in the 4th and hit the game winning shot. http://espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=310607006 He had 29 in G5 and a go-ahead dunk with around 2 minutes left. http://espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=310609006 He wasn't great in G6 but had 10 in the 4th and hit a big bucket to put them up 10 with around 2 minutes left, which emptied the arena. http://espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=310612014 He's a closer. If you had a draft today the prospect with the ability to take over games scoring and close will probably get drafted before everyone. The only exception would be a big that can control everything defensively. Barkley had 44/24/1/1/1 that game, on 60% shooting. In the 2011 playoffs Dirk had 48/6/4/4 on 80% shooting in G1 of the WCF's. He had another 40 point game (60% shooting) in G4. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nowitdi01/gamelog/2011/ In the 2006 playoffs he had 37/15/3/1/1 on 55% shooting in G7 of the semis, vs the defending champ Spurs. He ended the game with an And-1. He had a 50/3/12/1 game vs Phoenix in the next round. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nowitdi01/gamelog/2006/ Sure, Barkley is a better rebounder and passer. But he can't score or close games like Dirk, and you are underrating that skillset. Likely zero, since the Bulls defense was the main reason they won titles and Barkley sucks in that department. A key to their success was a PF that could defend the paint and on the perimeter. Barkley can't spell defense. You didn't hear anything because the news cycle isn't like it is today. When Barkley had his chance to hop on a stacked team, our 2 time champ Rockets, he jumped on it. When Wilt had an opportunity to force his way to LA in the late 60's, he forced a trade and jumped on it. Moses jumped on the chance to go to Philly. Jordan and Pippen jumped on the chance to add Rodman. Etc. The only thing different is unrestricted free agency gives guys more options.
KD stopped pretending to be the Golden Child a few years ago when he started giving crap to reporters. It's what gave delusional Rockets homers such as myself the belief that there was at least a tiny chance KD might come to Houston.
There are the facts. 1) Unrestricted free agency didn't exist until the mid 90's. 2) Even without unrestricted free agency, superstar players have had no issue using their available options to form superteams. Wilt successfully used the option of going to the ABA in the 60's, when he formed a superteam with Baylor and West. Magic successfully used the option of threating to return to college if LA didn't have the top pick, to form a superteam with Kareem in the 80's. He later tried to get Aguirre on his team after they played in the WCF's but he was not successful. Moses successfully used the option of restricted free agency to form a superteam with the Sixers in the 80's. Jordan successfully used his veto power when he was asked if it was ok for Rodman to come to Chicago, and he cosigned on it. 3) Older players spent decades fighting for unrestricted free agency.
No they won't. Interest was quite high when LA 3-peated and when the Bulls won 6 in 8 years. The league has arguably had it's best ratings when it's had superteams.
