some people over-analyze numbers.

If you take KD off this team, is it a better team?

I’d say…no.

some good discussion over at Canis Hoopus and I wandered over here to see what was being said here. “The statistics are lying” is what I’m reading. My question would is, If you replace Durant with Kevin Love, do you have a better team? Not saying one way or the other, just wondering on your thoughts. . .

Love can replace Durant, forgetting that they play different positions. I just don’t think Love is on the level as Durant as far as talent.

In my opinion, (and I could be off, and if I am, I’m sure someone will tell me), I think when Durant is on the floor, he looks to do too much, or maybe his teammates look for him to do more, and that creates problems that don’t exist when he’s on the bench and the other players have to step up their game to compensate for him not being out there.

When your best player is out there, you slack off and let him do the work, but when he’s not, you step up and play better. This would explain why the team might perform better without him.

Does that make sense?

There are so many nuances that aren’t particularly covered in his analysis or that are random assumptions or complete unknowns. To read something that does a better job replying to this, see: http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=732

I’d sum it all up, but the main bit I’d like to point out is this paragraph:

The way Durant’s absence influenced how Green and Westbrook were used on offense helps illustrate my biggest quibble with Winston’s comment denigrating Durant. It ignores the fact that adjusted plus-minus captures a player’s value only in the context of a certain role with a certain team. On the Mavericks or any other team, Durant might thrive in a different role. This is a weakness of any statistical rating system, not something germane solely to adjusted plus-minus, but that’s why analysts must be careful to supplement the bottom-line numbers with skill-based statistics and observation.