Is Kevin Durant the weakest superstar in NBA history?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is Kevin Durant the weakest superstar in NBA history?". Your opponent's style: NBA Watcher

Kevin Durant is absolutely the weakest superstar in nba history. Of course he is a good player, and one of the league's greatest scorers, but what he isn't is a winning player. He couldn't win on a thunder team with russell westbrook, james harden and serge ibaka, he couldn't win on a nets team with harden and kyrie, and he couldn't finish the job on a team with chris paul and devin booker. His two titles came after blowing a 3-1 lead to the warriors in 2016, which led to the weakest move by a superstar in not just league history, but dare i say sports history as well. Durant could not lead a team to a championship, and he needed to join a 73-9 warriors team to capture his only 2 titles. Durant may be the game's finest scorer, but he is not a winning player, and he is a soft and weak superstar who can't finish the job.

You're cherry-picking the worst narratives while ignoring the actual truth. Durant won two Finals MVPs on the Warriors, sure, but he also led the Thunder to the Finals in 2012 as the second option. The Nets collapsed because of injuries and Kyrie's drama, not Durant's weakness. The Suns got upset because role players disappeared, not because of him. And calling joining Golden State "soft"? That's just narrative—every superstar recruits help. LeBron did it. You're confusing "didn't win enough" with "can't win." Why doesn't that same logic apply to everyone else?