How many games would the Thunder win without Durant?

[bdm860]

45 wins. Westbrook-led OKC won't win anything.

They went 3-7 this year in games Durant missed.

Last year, they went 26-29 in games Durant missed.   They missed the playoffs because of it.  I'm bolding that, because it's a big one.  The Thunder went 19-8 last season in games Durant played (their typical 57 win pace).  But because he missed a large chunk of games, they failed to make the playoffs.  Think about that.  They literally couldn't make the playoffs without a full season from Durant.  We basically have our answer.

Over the past two seasons, the Thunder have gone 29-36 in games Durant has sat.  That's a 36 win pace. 

I think you're off a little here.

In 2015, the Thunder went 27-28 w/o Durant, not 26-29.  They were also missing both Durant and Westbrook for 15 of those games, and Anthony Morrow was the only guy who played more than 70 games for the Thunder that year.  That's pretty huge.    Similar in 2016,  while they were 3-7 w/o Durant, 2 of those games they were missing Westbrook as well (both late season when they were resting players).

In 2015, the Thunder went 22-18 (55%) with Westbrook and without Durant.  I personally like the Thunder without Durant better than Portland without Aldridge (54% this year) and this at least is shown in the Win % area for these limited samples (though of course Portland did overachieve in most people's view this year).

I also think there's a difference if Durant leaves in the beginning of July vs if he theoretically went down for the season on November 1.  The Thunder would have a chance to try to fill the gap somehow.  While you can never replace Durant, you could sign a capable body to help somewhat fill the gap (Deng, Batum, Jeff Green, Evan Turner, Joe Johnson, etc.) or make at trade to get somebody better than Andre Roberson (assuming the Thunder could sign anybody with Westbrook/Ibaka  more likely to leave the next year w/o Durant).  It would also give Donavan a chance to set up a new offensive system to take advantage of the players he does have (Waiters, Kanter, Ibaka) instead of being so Durant/Westbrook focused.

I think a healthy Thunder without Durant, with a full offseason to prepare and plan, would win 45-50 games, and would still make the playoffs out West.

Let's flip it around.  How many wins does just Russell Westbrook get you?  I think just him alone can get most teams 40 wins.

[PhoSita]

High forties.

With him, they ought to win sixty plus every year.

[LarBrd33]

Well what was their record last year? Because he didn't play much and wasn't healthy and Westbrook went on a super human tear!

a super human tear that reminded me of rondo's empty stats.  They had a losing record in games Durant didn't play. They missed the playoffs in spite of 27 games out of Durant.

[LarBrd33]

45 wins. Westbrook-led OKC won't win anything.

They went 3-7 this year in games Durant missed.

Last year, they went 26-29 in games Durant missed.   They missed the playoffs because of it.  I'm bolding that, because it's a big one.  The Thunder went 19-8 last season in games Durant played (their typical 57 win pace).  But because he missed a large chunk of games, they failed to make the playoffs.  Think about that.  They literally couldn't make the playoffs without a full season from Durant.  We basically have our answer.

Over the past two seasons, the Thunder have gone 29-36 in games Durant has sat.  That's a 36 win pace. 

I think you're off a little here.

In 2015, the Thunder went 27-28 w/o Durant, not 26-29.  They were also missing both Durant and Westbrook for 15 of those games, and Anthony Morrow was the only guy who played more than 70 games for the Thunder that year.  That's pretty huge.    Similar in 2016,  while they were 3-7 w/o Durant, 2 of those games they were missing Westbrook as well (both late season when they were resting players).

In 2015, the Thunder went 22-18 (55%) with Westbrook and without Durant.  I personally like the Thunder without Durant better than Portland without Aldridge (54% this year) and this at least is shown in the Win % area for these limited samples (though of course Portland did overachieve in most people's view this year).

I also think there's a difference if Durant leaves in the beginning of July vs if he theoretically went down for the season on November 1.  The Thunder would have a chance to try to fill the gap somehow.  While you can never replace Durant, you could sign a capable body to help somewhat fill the gap (Deng, Batum, Jeff Green, Evan Turner, Joe Johnson, etc.) or make at trade to get somebody better than Andre Roberson (assuming the Thunder could sign anybody with Westbrook/Ibaka  more likely to leave the next year w/o Durant).  It would also give Donavan a chance to set up a new offensive system to take advantage of the players he does have (Waiters, Kanter, Ibaka) instead of being so Durant/Westbrook focused.

I think a healthy Thunder without Durant, with a full offseason to prepare and plan, would win 45-50 games, and would still make the playoffs out West.

Let's flip it around.  How many wins does just Russell Westbrook get you?  I think just him alone can get most teams 40 wins.

bottom line is that they went 3-7 this year without Durant.  That's a 24 win pace.  Literally half what Boston won this year. 

Clearly he needs to come to Boston if he wants to double his chance of winning.

[bdm860]

45 wins. Westbrook-led OKC won't win anything.

They went 3-7 this year in games Durant missed.

Last year, they went 26-29 in games Durant missed.   They missed the playoffs because of it.  I'm bolding that, because it's a big one.  The Thunder went 19-8 last season in games Durant played (their typical 57 win pace).  But because he missed a large chunk of games, they failed to make the playoffs.  Think about that.  They literally couldn't make the playoffs without a full season from Durant.  We basically have our answer.

Over the past two seasons, the Thunder have gone 29-36 in games Durant has sat.  That's a 36 win pace. 

I think you're off a little here.

In 2015, the Thunder went 27-28 w/o Durant, not 26-29.  They were also missing both Durant and Westbrook for 15 of those games, and Anthony Morrow was the only guy who played more than 70 games for the Thunder that year.  That's pretty huge.    Similar in 2016,  while they were 3-7 w/o Durant, 2 of those games they were missing Westbrook as well (both late season when they were resting players).

In 2015, the Thunder went 22-18 (55%) with Westbrook and without Durant.  I personally like the Thunder without Durant better than Portland without Aldridge (54% this year) and this at least is shown in the Win % area for these limited samples (though of course Portland did overachieve in most people's view this year).

I also think there's a difference if Durant leaves in the beginning of July vs if he theoretically went down for the season on November 1.  The Thunder would have a chance to try to fill the gap somehow.  While you can never replace Durant, you could sign a capable body to help somewhat fill the gap (Deng, Batum, Jeff Green, Evan Turner, Joe Johnson, etc.) or make at trade to get somebody better than Andre Roberson (assuming the Thunder could sign anybody with Westbrook/Ibaka  more likely to leave the next year w/o Durant).  It would also give Donavan a chance to set up a new offensive system to take advantage of the players he does have (Waiters, Kanter, Ibaka) instead of being so Durant/Westbrook focused.

I think a healthy Thunder without Durant, with a full offseason to prepare and plan, would win 45-50 games, and would still make the playoffs out West.

Let's flip it around.  How many wins does just Russell Westbrook get you?  I think just him alone can get most teams 40 wins.

bottom line is that they went 3-7 this year without Durant.  That's a 24 win pace.  Literally half what Boston won this year. 

Clearly he needs to come to Boston if he wants to double his chance of winning.

The C's should sign James Jones too to strengthen their pitch.

That way Durant will not only join a team that doubled the win pace of Thunder without him, he'll also join forces with the player with 6 straight Finals appearances.

So Durant by himself accounts for a 59 win pace, add that to the 48 wins the Celtics already had without him, that's 107 wins!  Plus James Jones = guaranteed Finals appearance!  He'd be stupid not to come here.  It's a shame that the Warriors win record will only last for one season though.

[Moranis]

45 wins. Westbrook-led OKC won't win anything.

They went 3-7 this year in games Durant missed.

Last year, they went 26-29 in games Durant missed.   They missed the playoffs because of it.  I'm bolding that, because it's a big one.  The Thunder went 19-8 last season in games Durant played (their typical 57 win pace).  But because he missed a large chunk of games, they failed to make the playoffs.  Think about that.  They literally couldn't make the playoffs without a full season from Durant.  We basically have our answer.

Over the past two seasons, the Thunder have gone 29-36 in games Durant has sat.  That's a 36 win pace. 

I think you're off a little here.

In 2015, the Thunder went 27-28 w/o Durant, not 26-29.  They were also missing both Durant and Westbrook for 15 of those games, and Anthony Morrow was the only guy who played more than 70 games for the Thunder that year.  That's pretty huge.    Similar in 2016,  while they were 3-7 w/o Durant, 2 of those games they were missing Westbrook as well (both late season when they were resting players).

In 2015, the Thunder went 22-18 (55%) with Westbrook and without Durant.  I personally like the Thunder without Durant better than Portland without Aldridge (54% this year) and this at least is shown in the Win % area for these limited samples (though of course Portland did overachieve in most people's view this year).

I also think there's a difference if Durant leaves in the beginning of July vs if he theoretically went down for the season on November 1.  The Thunder would have a chance to try to fill the gap somehow.  While you can never replace Durant, you could sign a capable body to help somewhat fill the gap (Deng, Batum, Jeff Green, Evan Turner, Joe Johnson, etc.) or make at trade to get somebody better than Andre Roberson (assuming the Thunder could sign anybody with Westbrook/Ibaka  more likely to leave the next year w/o Durant).  It would also give Donavan a chance to set up a new offensive system to take advantage of the players he does have (Waiters, Kanter, Ibaka) instead of being so Durant/Westbrook focused.

I think a healthy Thunder without Durant, with a full offseason to prepare and plan, would win 45-50 games, and would still make the playoffs out West.

Let's flip it around.  How many wins does just Russell Westbrook get you?  I think just him alone can get most teams 40 wins.

bottom line is that they went 3-7 this year without Durant.  That's a 24 win pace.  Literally half what Boston won this year. 

Clearly he needs to come to Boston if he wants to double his chance of winning.

They went 0-2 without Westbrook (which happened to be 2 of the games Durant didn't play), I guess that means they would have gone 0-82 if they didn't have Westbrook (and Durant).  Ibaka didn't play in one of Durant's games either (westbrook played in that one).  In fact those were the last 3 games the Thunder played without Durant, including the last game of the year which didn't matter at all.  The stretch of 6 games early in the year, the Thunder were 3-3 without Durant.  That is probably a bit closer to what the team actually would have looked like since it wasn't just a random game here or there. 

[alldaboston]

45 wins. Westbrook-led OKC won't win anything.

They went 3-7 this year in games Durant missed.

Last year, they went 26-29 in games Durant missed.   They missed the playoffs because of it.  I'm bolding that, because it's a big one.  The Thunder went 19-8 last season in games Durant played (their typical 57 win pace).  But because he missed a large chunk of games, they failed to make the playoffs.  Think about that.  They literally couldn't make the playoffs without a full season from Durant.  We basically have our answer.

Over the past two seasons, the Thunder have gone 29-36 in games Durant has sat.  That's a 36 win pace. 

I think you're off a little here.

In 2015, the Thunder went 27-28 w/o Durant, not 26-29.  They were also missing both Durant and Westbrook for 15 of those games, and Anthony Morrow was the only guy who played more than 70 games for the Thunder that year.  That's pretty huge.    Similar in 2016,  while they were 3-7 w/o Durant, 2 of those games they were missing Westbrook as well (both late season when they were resting players).

In 2015, the Thunder went 22-18 (55%) with Westbrook and without Durant.  I personally like the Thunder without Durant better than Portland without Aldridge (54% this year) and this at least is shown in the Win % area for these limited samples (though of course Portland did overachieve in most people's view this year).

I also think there's a difference if Durant leaves in the beginning of July vs if he theoretically went down for the season on November 1.  The Thunder would have a chance to try to fill the gap somehow.  While you can never replace Durant, you could sign a capable body to help somewhat fill the gap (Deng, Batum, Jeff Green, Evan Turner, Joe Johnson, etc.) or make at trade to get somebody better than Andre Roberson (assuming the Thunder could sign anybody with Westbrook/Ibaka  more likely to leave the next year w/o Durant).  It would also give Donavan a chance to set up a new offensive system to take advantage of the players he does have (Waiters, Kanter, Ibaka) instead of being so Durant/Westbrook focused.

I think a healthy Thunder without Durant, with a full offseason to prepare and plan, would win 45-50 games, and would still make the playoffs out West.

Let's flip it around.  How many wins does just Russell Westbrook get you?  I think just him alone can get most teams 40 wins.

bottom line is that they went 3-7 this year without Durant.  That's a 24 win pace.  Literally half what Boston won this year. 

Clearly he needs to come to Boston if he wants to double his chance of winning.

They went 0-2 without Westbrook (which happened to be 2 of the games Durant didn't play), I guess that means they would have gone 0-82 if they didn't have Westbrook (and Durant).  Ibaka didn't play in one of Durant's games either (westbrook played in that one).  In fact those were the last 3 games the Thunder played without Durant, including the last game of the year which didn't matter at all.  The stretch of 6 games early in the year, the Thunder were 3-3 without Durant.  That is probably a bit closer to what the team actually would have looked like since it wasn't just a random game here or there.

This is a very valid counter.

[LarBrd33]

45 wins. Westbrook-led OKC won't win anything.

They went 3-7 this year in games Durant missed.

Last year, they went 26-29 in games Durant missed.   They missed the playoffs because of it.  I'm bolding that, because it's a big one.  The Thunder went 19-8 last season in games Durant played (their typical 57 win pace).  But because he missed a large chunk of games, they failed to make the playoffs.  Think about that.  They literally couldn't make the playoffs without a full season from Durant.  We basically have our answer.

Over the past two seasons, the Thunder have gone 29-36 in games Durant has sat.  That's a 36 win pace. 

I think you're off a little here.

In 2015, the Thunder went 27-28 w/o Durant, not 26-29.  They were also missing both Durant and Westbrook for 15 of those games, and Anthony Morrow was the only guy who played more than 70 games for the Thunder that year.  That's pretty huge.    Similar in 2016,  while they were 3-7 w/o Durant, 2 of those games they were missing Westbrook as well (both late season when they were resting players).

In 2015, the Thunder went 22-18 (55%) with Westbrook and without Durant.  I personally like the Thunder without Durant better than Portland without Aldridge (54% this year) and this at least is shown in the Win % area for these limited samples (though of course Portland did overachieve in most people's view this year).

I also think there's a difference if Durant leaves in the beginning of July vs if he theoretically went down for the season on November 1.  The Thunder would have a chance to try to fill the gap somehow.  While you can never replace Durant, you could sign a capable body to help somewhat fill the gap (Deng, Batum, Jeff Green, Evan Turner, Joe Johnson, etc.) or make at trade to get somebody better than Andre Roberson (assuming the Thunder could sign anybody with Westbrook/Ibaka  more likely to leave the next year w/o Durant).  It would also give Donavan a chance to set up a new offensive system to take advantage of the players he does have (Waiters, Kanter, Ibaka) instead of being so Durant/Westbrook focused.

I think a healthy Thunder without Durant, with a full offseason to prepare and plan, would win 45-50 games, and would still make the playoffs out West.

Let's flip it around.  How many wins does just Russell Westbrook get you?  I think just him alone can get most teams 40 wins.

bottom line is that they went 3-7 this year without Durant.  That's a 24 win pace.  Literally half what Boston won this year. 

Clearly he needs to come to Boston if he wants to double his chance of winning.

They went 0-2 without Westbrook (which happened to be 2 of the games Durant didn't play), I guess that means they would have gone 0-82 if they didn't have Westbrook (and Durant).  Ibaka didn't play in one of Durant's games either (westbrook played in that one).  In fact those were the last 3 games the Thunder played without Durant, including the last game of the year which didn't matter at all.  The stretch of 6 games early in the year, the Thunder were 3-3 without Durant.  That is probably a bit closer to what the team actually would have looked like since it wasn't just a random game here or there.

Pssh...   

If we're going to give Oklahoma a "Westbrook sat" gimme when considering the Durant-less Thunder, we also need to give Boston a "Bradley was injured" gimme when considering the Durant-less Celtics.   The Celtics only won 50% of their games with Bradley injured...  that suggest they'd be a 41 win team without Bradley.   They played at a 49 win pace with Bradley.   Considering the Bradley sat the majority of the playoffs, we can assume that the Celtics, with Bradley, would have easily streamrolled the East on their way to a Finals appearance.    It's an easy decision... stay with the Oklahoma team that didn't make the finals?  Or sign with the Boston team that, would have made the Finals had Bradley stayed healthy.

That's total nonsense, btw.  That makes no logical sense.

But here's the bottom line:   The Thunder have played at a below .500 pace when Durant sat.  THey have played at their typical 57 win pace when Durant played.   Regardless of whether you think the Thunder would win 36 or 45 wins without Durant is irrelevant.   Here's what it boils down to... the Thunder, even with Westbrook playing 67 games last season, Durant playing 27 games last season and let's not forget the key contributions from now-gone borderline-star Reggie Jackson (who was traded for a backup center), still failed to make the playoffs.   

How can you reasonably say this Thunder team would win over 45 games without Durant when they only won 45 games with Durant playing 1/3rd of their games last season?   If Durant playing 27 games only gets you to 45 wins, clearly their ceiling is less than 45 wins without him.

Thunder would be lotto-bound without Durant playing.   Boston has managed to make back-to-back trips to the playoffs with role players.   Adding Durant and Horford (two players who have proven to increase their team's win total) would very likely result in a better team than the hapless bunch that failed Durant this season. 

Outside of the still-overrated Russell Westbrook (who managed to shoot 40% during the playoffs and remains a poor fit next to Durant) and a couple role players, the Thunder are a pretty lacking roster without Durant.  Boston has an ideal foundation in place already to surround him with and that doesn't even account for our trade options and double-max cap space.       

[CelticSooner]

You know why the Thunder would win 45 games without Durant? Because that team would still be better than the Celtics. A better question would be is how many games would the C'a have won in West? Another one, are the C's even the best option for Durant?

[LarBrd33]

You know why the Thunder would win 45 games without Durant? Because that team would still be better than the Celtics. A better question would be is how many games would the C'a have won in West? Another one, are the C's even the best option for Durant?

Thunder would win less than 40 without Durant.

Someone compared the Durant-less Thunder to this year's Portland team that won 44 games.  I get that logic except for the fact that Damian Lillard is still a more efficient scorer than the still-overrated Russell Westbrook (Westbrook shot under 30% from three... lillard shot 38%), and comparing Andre Roberson or Dion Waiters to CJ McCollum is a major insult to McCollum and what he accomplished this season.  Portland won 44 games.   I'd give Oklahoma a 44 win ceiling if they were able to convert Dion Waiters or Andre Roberson into a McCollum-esque player capable of putting up 21 points, 4.3 assists, 3.2 rebounds, 1.2 steals with 45%/42%/83% shooting.

But since Westbrook wouldn't have a CJ McCollum on his team -  that team would continue to play at a below .500 record as they've proven capable of doing over the past two seasons.   

Also, I once again need to reiterate that even with Durant playing 27 games last season (in which they won 18 games), the Thunder still only managed to win 45 games last season and miss the playoffs.   They'd be lucky to crack 40 wins in a season entirely without Durant.

[CoachBo]

We're not going to find out any time soon.

[LarBrd33]

We're not going to find out any time soon.

No point in staying in OKC.   That team is holding him back.

[SHAQATTACK]

They would be lucky to make the playoffs in the West.

Bottom feeders in the West .

[GC003332]

47-50 wins

Interesting to see some folks take on how many games the Thunder would win minus Durant.

TP for being spot on.

[celticsclay]

Also how do you not miss LB!