16 Teams Have Called About Trading For K.Love

[nikkoewan]

Na it's all good I definitely don't have a problem explaining myself and would prefer for someone to ask me to be specific as opposed to assuming things.

I'll try to simplify the whole superstar vs star thing as best I can while still getting my point across.

1st there's a grading system right. So if LeBron is an A+ player, Durant is an A player, then C. Paul is an A- player. Then you have guys like Blake Griffin, LaMarcus Aldridge, Paul George, Russell Westbrook, Step Curry, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony, etc are B+ players

So based on grading A players are superstars so by my account theirs 3 superstars and the rest of the big time players at this point in their careers are stars. Some like Kobe Bryant(B+) and Duncan use to be A+ players but age has reduced their play to B+ players. Likewise a Player like D. Wade was an A player in is prime now he's a B to B- player. Than you have some guys that are on the cusp of being A to A- players like Curry, Griffin, Aldridge, and Harden (if he ever decides he wants to play defense).

So basically superstars are player A+ to A- players and star players are B+ to B- players. It is subjective and people may grade their superstars on a curve. Which I don't have a problem with and I'm sure I've probably done from time to time.

Keeping this on Kevin Love I would say right now he's a B player. Which would put him on par with guys like Harden(Who I think is highly overrated) Bosh, Ibaka, Noah and M. Gasol.

I still think you're leaving yourself open to a lot of misinterpretation. You never set out to tell us what those letters really mean. Are they the overall impact of a player? If so, what does "impact" actually mean to you? (Of course it means impact on getting wins, but everyone has an opinion of what parts of the game really have the largest impact on wins). I didn't exactly need to know who you think are superstars. I should have been able to identify them myself when you explained your methodology for identifying which players are worthy of superstardom. Instead, you gave me your answers with an assumption that your answers present your methodology and assumptions. They don't.

See what I mean when I asked for specifics?

When I set out to define what these tags actually mean, it always has to have something to do with "impact on wins". It should always be the end goal of whatever discussion anyone has on basketball (for the most part). Now, in order to define what impact on wins is, I think there needs to be an understanding of what constitutes winning -- there's offense and defense (DUH). Some might say that the importance of each one to winning is about equal. I disagree, I think defense is a more for important piece than offense. This will be the first discussion point for ALL of us regarding superstardom really (since someone like Love, who is more offensively gifted than defensively, is being branded as a superstar).

The methodology of identifying which players have the most impact on offense and defense is, at this point, far and wide.

Some would say "take X out of this team and let's see how that team performs". KD's team performs 6 points worse when he's off the court. The problem with this, of course, is that it neither accounts for teammates (in reality, OKC sans KD in the lineup is still a +2, which equates to about a .560 winning team) or opponents. Regularized APMs will help with this.

Some would depend on production - things like PER, WS, WP, *insert all-in-one metric here*. Superstars therefore are those who cross a particular border. 25+ PER, .200+ WS etc... (this is of course assuming there's enough sample size).

Some would take both cases to a macro-level. How well does Player X help a team shoot better? rebound better? prevent turnovers better? (or in totality, make his teammates and subsequently his team, play better).

In reality, I think (as with most cases) the answer lies somewhere in between + a tinge of eye test (again, there are a ton of discussion points to be had in the process I am detailing).

RAPM filtered by possession (at least 7000) and total xRAPM (+4) (source)



And here's a link of players this season who fit this criteria: PER of 25+, WS/48 of .200+, MPG of 30+, qualifies for MPG leaderboard.

You compare both lists and it basically comes down to 4 players: LeBron, KD, CP3 and KLove.

TLDR:

Player	o-RAPM	d-RAPM	PER	WS/48
James	+8.7	-0.8	29.3	.264
Durant	+5.5	-0.1	29.8	.295
Paul	+6.2	+1.2	25.9	.270
Love	+5.1	+1.3	26.9	.245

Eye test wise, I can see why those four are the best. James is about as obvious as it gets -- unstoppable on offense (especially if you put shooters around him), wreaks havoc on defense (might have slouched around in the season. Past xRAPM show strong d-RAPM).

KD is a different type of unstoppable to James. Equally potent, different tactic. Defensively, when locked in, he's as impactful as LBJ (although not as interchangeable).

The last two, Paul and Love, have some flaws. Paul's offensive work isn't as brilliant as it once was. Length bothers him and he has a tendency to over-pass. Defensively, he's hovered between overrated and underrated. He's more than a swipe demon. He's a smart team defender and a calculating gambler.

Love is near unstoppable on offense. Shooting, offensive rebounding, post work, et al. His defense is at best average (which bumps him down a notch. His +1.3 is a surprise, even to me). But I think his offensive impact is near equivalent to KD's and LBJs.

So to end, there are only two undisputed "superstars" in the league -- KD and LBJ. There are two other players that are debatable but certainly worthy of the title -- Paul and Love. There are maybe countless others worthy of the title (AD is one. xRAPM is currently at +1.9).

[BallSoHard]

Honestly,

I think Lebron and Durant are the only 2 superstars in the league right now.

I still think you're leaving yourself open to a lot of misinterpretation. You never set out to tell us what those letters really mean. Are they the overall impact of a player? If so, what does "impact" actually mean to you? (Of course it means impact on getting wins, but everyone has an opinion of what parts of the game really have the largest impact on wins). I didn't exactly need to know who you think are superstars. I should have been able to identify them myself when you explained your methodology for identifying which players are worthy of superstardom. Instead, you gave me your answers with an assumption that your answers present your methodology and assumptions. They don't.

See what I mean when I asked for specifics?

When I set out to define what these tags actually mean, it always has to have something to do with "impact on wins". It should always be the end goal of whatever discussion anyone has on basketball (for the most part). Now, in order to define what impact on wins is, I think there needs to be an understanding of what constitutes winning -- there's offense and defense (DUH). Some might say that the importance of each one to winning is about equal. I disagree, I think defense is a more for important piece than offense. This will be the first discussion point for ALL of us regarding superstardom really (since someone like Love, who is more offensively gifted than defensively, is being branded as a superstar).

The methodology of identifying which players have the most impact on offense and defense is, at this point, far and wide.

Some would say "take X out of this team and let's see how that team performs". KD's team performs 6 points worse when he's off the court. The problem with this, of course, is that it neither accounts for teammates (in reality, OKC sans KD in the lineup is still a +2, which equates to about a .560 winning team) or opponents. Regularized APMs will help with this.

Some would depend on production - things like PER, WS, WP, *insert all-in-one metric here*. Superstars therefore are those who cross a particular border. 25+ PER, .200+ WS etc... (this is of course assuming there's enough sample size).

Some would take both cases to a macro-level. How well does Player X help a team shoot better? rebound better? prevent turnovers better? (or in totality, make his teammates and subsequently his team, play better).

In reality, I think (as with most cases) the answer lies somewhere in between + a tinge of eye test (again, there are a ton of discussion points to be had in the process I am detailing).

RAPM filtered by possession (at least 7000) and total xRAPM (+4) (source)



And here's a link of players this season who fit this criteria: PER of 25+, WS/48 of .200+, MPG of 30+, qualifies for MPG leaderboard.

You compare both lists and it basically comes down to 4 players: LeBron, KD, CP3 and KLove.

TLDR:

Player	o-RAPM	d-RAPM	PER	WS/48
James	+8.7	-0.8	29.3	.264
Durant	+5.5	-0.1	29.8	.295
Paul	+6.2	+1.2	25.9	.270
Love	+5.1	+1.3	26.9	.245

Eye test wise, I can see why those four are the best. James is about as obvious as it gets -- unstoppable on offense (especially if you put shooters around him), wreaks havoc on defense (might have slouched around in the season. Past xRAPM show strong d-RAPM).

KD is a different type of unstoppable to James. Equally potent, different tactic. Defensively, when locked in, he's as impactful as LBJ (although not as interchangeable).

The last two, Paul and Love, have some flaws. Paul's offensive work isn't as brilliant as it once was. Length bothers him and he has a tendency to over-pass. Defensively, he's hovered between overrated and underrated. He's more than a swipe demon. He's a smart team defender and a calculating gambler.

Love is near unstoppable on offense. Shooting, offensive rebounding, post work, et al. His defense is at best average (which bumps him down a notch. His +1.3 is a surprise, even to me). But I think his offensive impact is near equivalent to KD's and LBJs.

So to end, there are only two undisputed "superstars" in the league -- KD and LBJ. There are two other players that are debatable but certainly worthy of the title -- Paul and Love. There are maybe countless others worthy of the title (AD is one. xRAPM is currently at +1.9).

[nikkoewan]

Yes, because you clearly detailed how you arrived at your conclusion.

Also, I wrote four players that I think are worthy of being called "superstars" or "game changers" or whatever your arbitrary classification of them are.

[BallSoHard]

Yes, because you clearly detailed how you arrived at your conclusion.

Also, I wrote four players that I think are worthy of being called "superstars" or "game changers" or whatever your arbitrary classification of them are.

I was happy we agreed. Not sure why you're upset about it man.

[da ThRONe]

I still think you're leaving yourself open to a lot of misinterpretation. You never set out to tell us what those letters really mean. Are they the overall impact of a player? If so, what does "impact" actually mean to you? (Of course it means impact on getting wins, but everyone has an opinion of what parts of the game really have the largest impact on wins). I didn't exactly need to know who you think are superstars. I should have been able to identify them myself when you explained your methodology for identifying which players are worthy of superstardom. Instead, you gave me your answers with an assumption that your answers present your methodology and assumptions. They don't.

See what I mean when I asked for specifics?

When I set out to define what these tags actually mean, it always has to have something to do with "impact on wins". It should always be the end goal of whatever discussion anyone has on basketball (for the most part). Now, in order to define what impact on wins is, I think there needs to be an understanding of what constitutes winning -- there's offense and defense (DUH). Some might say that the importance of each one to winning is about equal. I disagree, I think defense is a more for important piece than offense. This will be the first discussion point for ALL of us regarding superstardom really (since someone like Love, who is more offensively gifted than defensively, is being branded as a superstar).

The methodology of identifying which players have the most impact on offense and defense is, at this point, far and wide.

Some would say "take X out of this team and let's see how that team performs". KD's team performs 6 points worse when he's off the court. The problem with this, of course, is that it neither accounts for teammates (in reality, OKC sans KD in the lineup is still a +2, which equates to about a .560 winning team) or opponents. Regularized APMs will help with this.

Some would depend on production - things like PER, WS, WP, *insert all-in-one metric here*. Superstars therefore are those who cross a particular border. 25+ PER, .200+ WS etc... (this is of course assuming there's enough sample size).

Some would take both cases to a macro-level. How well does Player X help a team shoot better? rebound better? prevent turnovers better? (or in totality, make his teammates and subsequently his team, play better).

In reality, I think (as with most cases) the answer lies somewhere in between + a tinge of eye test (again, there are a ton of discussion points to be had in the process I am detailing).

RAPM filtered by possession (at least 7000) and total xRAPM (+4) (source)



And here's a link of players this season who fit this criteria: PER of 25+, WS/48 of .200+, MPG of 30+, qualifies for MPG leaderboard.

You compare both lists and it basically comes down to 4 players: LeBron, KD, CP3 and KLove.

TLDR:

Player	o-RAPM	d-RAPM	PER	WS/48
James	+8.7	-0.8	29.3	.264
Durant	+5.5	-0.1	29.8	.295
Paul	+6.2	+1.2	25.9	.270
Love	+5.1	+1.3	26.9	.245

Eye test wise, I can see why those four are the best. James is about as obvious as it gets -- unstoppable on offense (especially if you put shooters around him), wreaks havoc on defense (might have slouched around in the season. Past xRAPM show strong d-RAPM).

KD is a different type of unstoppable to James. Equally potent, different tactic. Defensively, when locked in, he's as impactful as LBJ (although not as interchangeable).

The last two, Paul and Love, have some flaws. Paul's offensive work isn't as brilliant as it once was. Length bothers him and he has a tendency to over-pass. Defensively, he's hovered between overrated and underrated. He's more than a swipe demon. He's a smart team defender and a calculating gambler.

Love is near unstoppable on offense. Shooting, offensive rebounding, post work, et al. His defense is at best average (which bumps him down a notch. His +1.3 is a surprise, even to me). But I think his offensive impact is near equivalent to KD's and LBJs.

So to end, there are only two undisputed "superstars" in the league -- KD and LBJ. There are two other players that are debatable but certainly worthy of the title -- Paul and Love. There are maybe countless others worthy of the title (AD is one. xRAPM is currently at +1.9).

I think we touched on this from the beginning. Rating players are as about as subjective as anything. If you wanted some tangible stats I don't think there's no one stat and/or combo of stats that tell the whole story.

[HornetGuru]

I think we touched on this from the beginning. Rating players are as about as subjective as anything. If you wanted some tangible stats I don't think there's no one stat and/or combo of stats that tell the whole story.

agree 100%

[DefensiveMind]

No, they only tell 87% of the story. Lol. Some of you sound like the old guys at the beginning of Moneyball. These aren't your daddy stats or even your older brothers stats. The art is putting together the right combinations of productive players. The stats themselves, while not flawless, are pretty clear and discerning.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[da ThRONe]

No, they only tell 87% of the story. Lol. Some of you sound like the old guys at the beginning of Moneyball. These aren't your daddy stats or even your older brothers stats. The art is putting together the right combinations of productive players. The stats themselves, while not flawless, are pretty clear and discerning.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

Here's a stat 6 seasons 0 playoff appearances.

[nikkoewan]

I was happy we agreed. Not sure why you're upset about it man.

Didn't mean to sound rude/upset. I'm not.

I am however still looking for an explanation.

[nikkoewan]

I think we touched on this from the beginning. Rating players are as about as subjective as anything. If you wanted some tangible stats I don't think there's no one stat and/or combo of stats that tell the whole story.

I am tired of hearing this excuse. If everything has to be subjective, what is the point of us discussing?

The main point about debating is to come to a unified front (or at least close to it). We aren't debating for the purpose of debating. That would be pointless. That would be like fighting a war just for the war. We are debating because we are trying to come up with universally accepted statement/s. Whether this/these statement/s are fact is beyond our concern.

One giant misconception people have about "statistics" is that they think you can use numbers to tell whatever story you want. The moment you do that is the moment you've misused it.

Here's a stat 6 seasons 0 playoff appearances.

This is one example.

The answer should never come up before the question. It's a flawed logical reasoning. There's a reason why scientific inquisition starts with asking a question. Your inquisition should never start with the conclusion or a hypothesis like "Love is not a superstar". In this case it should be "What is a superstar?" (However superfluous and shallow this question is).

And can I just say I am tired of reading people using that excuse ("no one stat/combo of stat tells the whole story"). It's lazy. If you don't understand these statistics, just say it. OF COURSE IT DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY. MUCH IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOUR EYE TEST DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY TOO. Most of the good writers/observers/fans never end with "Here is stat A, B, C. Here is my take away from that."

IT'S BEEN SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. This is NOT "Analytics" versus "Eye Test". It is "Analytics AND Eye Test".

If you still think everything is subjective, then I'm going to say JR Smith is the F***ing best player to ever play in the NBA and none of you can't say anything about it. It's my opinion so state yours and leave me be.

That isn't the case (both for basketball being subjective and JR Smith being the GOAT). So let's open the floor once again:

What helps you define a superstar? A specific benchmark (PER? WS? WP?), a specific characteristic? (he can play offense and defense well or maybe he can take over games), what about intangible features like "leadership" or "makes his teammates better"?

Something. Anything.

A lot of the trolling that happens here in PR (and I've eaten a lot of imaginary popcorns just rummaging through threads that devolved into meaningless banter) happen because few are willing to enter into a mutually open discourse on topics. I am inviting it. So please none of these statements without explanation. Give your statement then give a logical and coherent explanation.

Note: I am sorry if it sounds rude, off-putting and high almighty. I'm not! I'm a pretty nice person hahaha. I just hate it when topics that are so ripe for discussion turns into nothing. I am not trying to act like a know-it-all. I just want to have an intellectual discourse. I can be swayed with a nice, reasonable opinion. But it has to be reasonable and well thought out. Thanks!

[DefensiveMind]

I am tired of hearing this excuse. If everything has to be subjective, what is the point of us discussing?

The main point about debating is to come to a unified front (or at least close to it). We aren't debating for the purpose of debating. That would be pointless. That would be like fighting a war just for the war. We are debating because we are trying to come up with universally accepted statement/s. Whether this/these statement/s are fact is beyond our concern.

One giant misconception people have about "statistics" is that they think you can use numbers to tell whatever story you want. The moment you do that is the moment you've misused it.



This is one example.

The answer should never come up before the question. It's a flawed logical reasoning. There's a reason why scientific inquisition starts with asking a question. Your inquisition should never start with the conclusion or a hypothesis like "Love is not a superstar". In this case it should be "What is a superstar?" (However superfluous and shallow this question is).

And can I just say I am tired of reading people using that excuse ("no one stat/combo of stat tells the whole story"). It's lazy. If you don't understand these statistics, just say it. OF COURSE IT DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY. MUCH IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOUR EYE TEST DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY TOO. Most of the good writers/observers/fans never end with "Here is stat A, B, C. Here is my take away from that."

IT'S BEEN SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. This is NOT "Analytics" versus "Eye Test". It is "Analytics AND Eye Test".

If you still think everything is subjective, then I'm going to say JR Smith is the F***ing best player to ever play in the NBA and none of you can't say anything about it. It's my opinion so state yours and leave me be.

That isn't the case (both for basketball being subjective and JR Smith being the GOAT). So let's open the floor once again:

What helps you define a superstar? A specific benchmark (PER? WS? WP?), a specific characteristic? (he can play offense and defense well or maybe he can take over games), what about intangible features like "leadership" or "makes his teammates better"?

Something. Anything.

A lot of the trolling that happens here in PR (and I've eaten a lot of imaginary popcorns just rummaging through threads that devolved into meaningless banter) happen because few are willing to enter into a mutually open discourse on topics. I am inviting it. So please none of these statements without explanation. Give your statement then give a logical and coherent explanation.

Note: I am sorry if it sounds rude, off-putting and high almighty. I'm not! I'm a pretty nice person hahaha. I just hate it when topics that are so ripe for discussion turns into nothing. I am not trying to act like a know-it-all. I just want to have an intellectual discourse. I can be swayed with a nice, reasonable opinion. But it has to be reasonable and well thought out. Thanks!

Amen.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[Mythrol]

I think Love is a Superstar. . .

[NOLa.]

This thread quickly became tl;dr

I think there are 3 superstars

[BallSoHard]

Didn't mean to sound rude/upset. I'm not.

I am however still looking for an explanation.

It's exausting coming up with a comprehensive way to tell you my subjective (because let's be honest if you use stats or the eye test / or stats AND the eye test it's still subjective) description. I'll give you a simple explaination. A superstar TO ME is a guy who is a dominant player without a serious flaw in his game. Now what defines dominant? Look, we can pull all the stats in the world, but we know Lebron and Durant is dominant on offense. Hell, so is Westbrook, Love and a littany of other players. We don't need a dissertation to recognize that. We also know Lebron is dominant on defense. We can see Durant isn't bad, wouldn't call him great, but he's not bad. Love on the other hand, he's not anyone we would consider good to great at; that's something you've acknowledged in your post. That to me is what i define asa serious flaw to half his game, which is why I personally do not consider him a superstar. If a player is a great defender but struggles on offense he's not a superstar. It's really simple. I'm not sure where the injury from the galley comes in to say a guy like Love is a star. It's huge compliment. He's dominant imo on one side of the ball and he's a GREAT rebounder. He just does not control the game on 1 whole end of the court (half the game). This is something you illuded to. In fact your post was arguing FOR Love being a superstar but to me, it cemented my opinion on why he's not a superstar. If a guy is a superstar, it's clear as day; there is no fringe. That's why I also said earlier that Durant and Lebron are the only 2 in the league. Now why does Durant get a pass on defense but Love doesn't? Well, for one, Durant is an above average defender imo and Love is as you stated... "is at best average ". add that to the fact that on offense, Durant is historically great and that's why I give him a pass on not being great on D. Anyway, I'm sure this will be broken down word for word and i'm fune with that, but just wanted to give you my executive summary on "superstar". I'll take my sammich now.

[nikkoewan]

I can get down with a superstar being someone that has no flaws. One problem: you think KD has no flaws?

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

[Kurgan]

Will people learn to read?

No, "a superstar is a player who has no flaws" and "a superstar is a player who has no serious flaw" are not the same sentence.

Jeez. Reading and comprehension for everyone (myself included, it could help me with a couple of exams).

[BallSoHard]

I can get down with a superstar being someone that has no flaws. One problem: you think KD has no flaws?

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

It was serious flaw not no flaw.. lebron even has some flaws/ I think it comes down to the fact that Durant is an above average defender and historically great offensive player while love is a below average defender with a great offensive game. The difference between historically great versus great and below average defender versus above average defender sets them apart. I mean look, Shaq was a superstar, but he had flaws to his game without a doubt. He couldn't hit FTs, but it didn't define him as an offensive player. It was a nitpick on his overall game. Love is an average athlete with average measurables (a fact that i forgot to mention in my post). While i agree athleticism is probably a very very small thing to determine a superstar, it's there as well. I do think Love is a great passer for his position though, but i just kind of lump that into his overall great offensive game.

[Mythrol]

I'm confused how people say Love is bad on defense but say Durant isn't. I've seen nothing to shows me Durant is a plus defender. Actually I've seen the opposite. Go watch our very own Austin Rivers highlight video of last season. He burned Durant not once but twice in the same game.

To me there is only one elite player on both sides of the ball - Lebron. If we are going to use defense as the reason Love isn't considered a Superstar then there is only one superstar in the league. Which I'm fine with that. But if we are going to include guys like Durant I can't see how Love isn't when they are even on defense. Heck look at what they each put up. KD: 29.9-6.9-5.1. KL: 25.9-12.4-4.4. 4 points less, .7 assists less, but 5.5 more rebounds nearly double.

[BallSoHard]

I'm confused how people say Love is bad on defense but say Durant isn't. I've seen nothing to shows me Durant is a plus defender. Actually I've seen the opposite. Go watch our very own Austin Rivers highlight video of last season. He burned Durant not once but twice in the same game. To me there is only one elite player on both sides of the ball - Lebron. If we are going to use defense as the reason Love isn't considered a Superstar then there is only one superstar in the league. Which I'm fine with that. But if we are going to include guys like Durant I can't see how Love isn't when they are even on defense. Heck look at what they each put up. KD: 29.9-6.9-5.1. KL: 25.9-12.4-4.4. 4 points less, .7 assists less, but 5.5 more rebounds nearly double.

Seems like a very small sample size. I've seen Durant defend well for large portions of games. He may have gotten burned by a pg a couple of times in a (meaningless) game, but I've also see Tony Parker blow by Lebron. Let's also not forget that Durant is 7' tall and defending perimeter players.. again, I'm not sure why people get upset (or seem appauled) when you call Love a star but just not a superstar. Let's play this game that Durant is a horrible defender and take him out of the superstar bracket despite a MVP), it still doesn't elevate Kevin Love into Superstar status.

[nikkoewan]

Will people learn to read?

No, "a superstar is a player who has no flaws" and "a superstar is a player who has no serious flaw" are not the same sentence.

Jeez. Reading and comprehension for everyone (myself included, it could help me with a couple of exams).

I understood the "no serious flaw" sorry for misquoting him.

It was serious flaw not no flaw.. lebron even has some flaws/ I think it comes down to the fact that Durant is an above average defender and historically great offensive player while love is a below average defender with a great offensive game. The difference between historically great versus great and below average defender versus above average defender sets them apart. I mean look, Shaq was a superstar, but he had flaws to his game without a doubt. He couldn't hit FTs, but it didn't define him as an offensive player. It was a nitpick on his overall game. Love is an average athlete with average measurables (a fact that i forgot to mention in my post). While i agree athleticism is probably a very very small thing to determine a superstar, it's there as well. I do think Love is a great passer for his position though, but i just kind of lump that into his overall great offensive game.

I still go back to my question: you think KD has no serious flaw?

[BallSoHard]

I understood the "no serious flaw" sorry for misquoting him.




I still go back to my question: you think KD has no serious flaw?

Not really.
Great Scorer
Good ball handler (a little sloppy with the TOs though)
Good and willing passer (#4 overall for SF)
Good defender
Great rebounder (#1 overall in per game by position)
Good Decision Maker
Doesn't get into foul trouble
Not a head case (even though they're allowed 1).

Am I missing something here? I don't see a serious flaw, unless we of course are going to debate the merits of a "serious flaw"?

[nikkoewan]

Not really.
Great Scorer
Good ball handler (a little sloppy with the TOs though)
Good and willing passer (#4 overall for SF)
Good defender
Great rebounder (#1 overall in per game by position)
Good Decision Maker
Doesn't get into foul trouble
Not a head case (even though they're allowed 1).

Am I missing something here? I don't see a serious flaw, unless we of course are going to debate the merits of a "serious flaw"?

From what I see, he can't defend the post - a giant flaw considering most of his contemporaries love playing with their back facing the basket (LBJ, Melo, George).

He still misses rotations (I mean even great defensive players do sometimes. But he misses them more than what is supposedly acceptable). As an individual defender, tasked with preventing the ball handler penetration, he's gotten good. But reading the third and fourth actions are still a struggle to KD.

He also has a tendency to lean too much on his jumper (not that it matters as much since he's shooting somewhere around 50+% on those attempts). Just worth mentioning.

So if we're talking a guy without a serious flaw, it only has to be LBJ. Yes?

[BallSoHard]

From what I see, he can't defend the post - a giant flaw considering most of his contemporaries love playing with their back facing the basket (LBJ, Melo, George).

He still misses rotations (I mean even great defensive players do sometimes. But he misses them more than what is supposedly acceptable). As an individual defender, tasked with preventing the ball handler penetration, he's gotten good. But reading the third and fourth actions are still a struggle to KD.

He also has a tendency to lean too much on his jumper (not that it matters as much since he's shooting somewhere around 50+% on those attempts). Just worth mentioning.

So if we're talking a guy without a serious flaw, it only has to be LBJ. Yes?

no. Those aren't serious flaws. Most of those are mental mistakes over the course of the game. Missing rotations? Defending the post against 3 guys who don't play in his conference? Shooting too many jumpers which he hits at a really good rate? Those things to me are nitpicks, not serious flaws. If Durant did those thigns better he would be BETTER than Lebron and be the best player in the game.

Again, if tearing down Durant is the strategy here, it STILL does not elevate Love to superstar status.

[Kibner]

Nikko has it right about Durant's defense. Love is an 'eh' man defender (solid against post-ups but... not good at anything else) and awful help defender from what I can remember.

[BallSoHard]

Nikko has it right about Durant's defense. Love is an 'eh' man defender (solid against post-ups but... not good at anything else) and awful help defender from what I can remember.

So... serious flaw on the defensive end.. Star but not a superstar.