So... where does Draymond Green rank in the league

[TaylorMonkey]

Zach Lowe is a bit of a bandwagoning tool at times.

More importantly nothing Zach said there contradicts what I said. All the GMs can be talking about Draymond Green and not a one of them can be talking about Draymond Green being better than John Wall. The things are not remotely exclusive.

Lowe is the smartest writer in basketball. He had the Warriors as a dark horse early.

I don't actually disagree that most GMs wouldn't trade Green for an established star. I think some GMs would have to think about trading a potential star if they had the pieces where Draymond would easily put them over the top. Regardless GMs are trying figure out how to get a Green on their team. Guys like that have been undervalued and 1-5 defense is not a "niche" anymore than a top offensive player is.

Paulie said it above, but even Lowe wouldn't say Green is a top 10 guy. And honestly, Lowe's been wrong his share of times too, he's smart, but he's definitely a "I'm smarter than the rest of the room" sort of guy to me.

I think Green's a top 20 with potential greater impact based on fit.

And Lowe never seemed that way to me. He just seemed to *actually* be smarter than the rest of the room.

I've read insufferable loggers, posters and writers that make it about themselves and how right and smart they are. Lowe doesn't come close to setting those bells off for me.

[bondom34]

Lowe is the smartest writer in basketball. He had the Warriors as a dark horse early.

I don't actually disagree that most GMs wouldn't trade Green for an established star. I think some GMs would have to think about trading a potential star if they had the pieces where Draymond would easily put them over the top. Regardless GMs are trying figure out how to get a Green on their team. Guys like that have been undervalued and 1-5 defense is not a "niche" anymore than a top offensive player is.

Paulie said it above, but even Lowe wouldn't say Green is a top 10 guy. And honestly, Lowe's been wrong his share of times too, he's smart, but he's definitely a "I'm smarter than the rest of the room" sort of guy to me.

I think Green's a top 20 with potential greater impact based on fit.

And Lowe never seemed that way to me. He just seemed to *actually* be smarter than the rest of the room.

I've read insufferable loggers, posters and writers that make it about themselves and how right and smart they are. Lowe doesn't come close to setting those bells off for me.

Maybe its a matter of POV or taste of writer, because he hits every button of that for me . That said, I'd be floored if any actual NBA mind took him in the top 20 players if there were a draft of everyone in the league. Stunned. I think he's where he is to me (top 30) on fit and skill, too perfect a situation.

[TaylorMonkey]

Paulie said it above, but even Lowe wouldn't say Green is a top 10 guy. And honestly, Lowe's been wrong his share of times too, he's smart, but he's definitely a "I'm smarter than the rest of the room" sort of guy to me.

I think Green's a top 20 with potential greater impact based on fit.

And Lowe never seemed that way to me. He just seemed to *actually* be smarter than the rest of the room.

I've read insufferable loggers, posters and writers that make it about themselves and how right and smart they are. Lowe doesn't come close to setting those bells off for me.

Maybe its a matter of POV or taste of writer, because he hits every button of that for me .

Oh, he is? Because I graduated college with a 3.99 GPA in biology and got my Masters with a 3.8. He's a pompous writer who has been wrong plenty. And your other statements are just false, I'd take those duos over a Green duo easily. And jeez he isn't a superstar.

lol. I'll probably have to come to you if I need help understanding the Krebs cycle but Lowe knows his basketball.

I never got the pompous vibe from him. And I'm pretty good at detecting that vibe.

That said, I'd be floored if any actual NBA mind took him in the top 20 players if there were a draft of everyone in the league. Stunned. I think he's where he is to me (top 30) on fit and skill, too perfect a situation.

I think top 20-30 starts to split hairs and players are more alike than in that range than those in say the 1-10 range.

While Green's in a great fit, he's hardly niche and I think he would fit on any contender and produce a top 10 impact and a top 2-5 defensive impact.

[bondom34]

I think Green's a top 20 with potential greater impact based on fit.

And Lowe never seemed that way to me. He just seemed to *actually* be smarter than the rest of the room.

I've read insufferable loggers, posters and writers that make it about themselves and how right and smart they are. Lowe doesn't come close to setting those bells off for me.

Maybe its a matter of POV or taste of writer, because he hits every button of that for me .

Oh, he is? Because I graduated college with a 3.99 GPA in biology and got my Masters with a 3.8. He's a pompous writer who has been wrong plenty. And your other statements are just false, I'd take those duos over a Green duo easily. And jeez he isn't a superstar.

lol. I'll probably have to come to you if I need help understanding the Krebs cycle but Lowe knows his basketball.

I never got the pompous vibe from him. And I'm pretty good at detecting that vibe.

That said, I'd be floored if any actual NBA mind took him in the top 20 players if there were a draft of everyone in the league. Stunned. I think he's where he is to me (top 30) on fit and skill, too perfect a situation.

I think top 20-30 starts to split hairs and players are more alike than in that range tha. Say 1-10.
I think he'd fit in a few places, but the issue with me is for about the top 20-30 guys, you're taking a guy you can build around and plug anyone in, where Green is a guy who you plug in after you have that guy. After that you start taking the Green types who can be the second best on a winner, as he's got a ton of impact but its so based off of fit that I couldn't take him higher. I put Evan Z's metric on here a few pages ago and he described it well, its the same to a lesser extent w/ Pat Beverly, he's got great impact numbers but it doesn't mean he's that great a player.
While Green's in a great fit, he's hardly niche and I think he would fit on any contender and produce a top 10 impact and a top 2-5 defensive impact.

[TaylorMonkey]

I think top 20-30 starts to split hairs and players are more alike than in that range tha. Say 1-10.
I think he'd fit in a few places, but the issue with me is for about the top 20-30 guys, you're taking a guy you can build around and plug anyone in, where Green is a guy who you plug in after you have that guy. After that you start taking the Green types who can be the second best on a winner, as he's got a ton of impact but its so based off of fit that I couldn't take him higher. I put Evan Z's metric on here a few pages ago and he described it well, its the same to a lesser extent w/ Pat Beverly, he's got great impact numbers but it doesn't mean he's that great a player.

I definitely agree that Green is not the guy you build around, but the guy you build around that guy with. I would say the same of say, a Dennis Rodman, who Green is kind of a thrifty man's version of.

Green is a much more impactful and versatile player than Patrick Beverley though. Beverley is much more niche and a role player. He's pretty much a rich man's Dellavedova. You pretty much need to have a ball dominant 2 guard or wing to be able to play him. Green plugs into any contending team with a star of any style.

Like or hate him, I think Lowe's description of context-sensitive star for Green is pretty accurate.

Also, weird you would quote EvanZ's impact numbers but then say Green is not actually that great a player. EvanZ has been RABID about him from day one because of those numbers. RABID. He was probably on the Green is freaking amazing train earlier and harder than anyone. His signature on GSOM is a quote mocking someone saying Green was okay but can't dribble, pass, or shoot.

It's like quoting Sonny the Cuckoo saying cereal is just part of a complete breakfast as an argument against being cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

[Basileus777]

Lowe is the smartest writer in basketball. He had the Warriors as a dark horse early.

I don't actually disagree that most GMs wouldn't trade Green for an established star. I think some GMs would have to think about trading a potential star if they had the pieces where Draymond would easily put them over the top. Regardless GMs are trying figure out how to get a Green on their team. Guys like that have been undervalued and 1-5 defense is not a "niche" anymore than a top offensive player is.

Paulie said it above, but even Lowe wouldn't say Green is a top 10 guy. And honestly, Lowe's been wrong his share of times too, he's smart, but he's definitely a "I'm smarter than the rest of the room" sort of guy to me.

I think Green's a top 20 with potential greater impact based on fit.

And Lowe never seemed that way to me. He just seemed to *actually* be smarter than the rest of the room.

I've read insufferable loggers, posters and writers that make it about themselves and how right and smart they are. Lowe doesn't come close to setting those bells off for me.

Lowe doesn't come off as pretentious or arrogant. Though he is a bit of a name dropper, he loves to constantly reference all the important people around the league he is talking to in a way that often comes off as excessive. It's reminiscent of Peter King at times, though Lowe isn't quite at that level.

[Swagalicious]

Lowe has definitely gotten more arrogant. It's pretty evident that he thinks he's infallible.

[Dr Spaceman]

Lowe doesn't come off as pretentious or arrogant. Though he is a bit of a name dropper, he loves to constantly reference all the important people around the league he is talking to in a way that often comes off as excessive. It's reminiscent of Peter King at times, though Lowe isn't quite at that level.

To be honest, when he talks about "executives", I think he is just covering his bases so that we know he's not pulling stuff out of his butt. Unlike most sportswriters Lowe was an actual journalist at one point and so stuff like this is essentially ingrained just to cover yourself. I don't think he does it to be pretentious. It's just that in basketball the only actual sources are executives and so when he does this he ends up starting too many sentences with "I spoke to a couple executives...", "Every executive I've spoken to...", "Many high-ranking league officials...".

So yeah, I can see why that's obnoxious, but I think it's just a tic of his.

[bondom34]

I think top 20-30 starts to split hairs and players are more alike than in that range tha. Say 1-10.
I think he'd fit in a few places, but the issue with me is for about the top 20-30 guys, you're taking a guy you can build around and plug anyone in, where Green is a guy who you plug in after you have that guy. After that you start taking the Green types who can be the second best on a winner, as he's got a ton of impact but its so based off of fit that I couldn't take him higher. I put Evan Z's metric on here a few pages ago and he described it well, its the same to a lesser extent w/ Pat Beverly, he's got great impact numbers but it doesn't mean he's that great a player.

I definitely agree that Green is not the guy you build around, but the guy you build around that guy with. I would say the same of say, a Dennis Rodman, who Green is kind of a thrifty man's version of.

Green is a much more impactful and versatile player than Patrick Beverley though. Beverley is much more niche and a role player. He's pretty much a rich man's Dellavedova. You pretty much need to have a ball dominant 2 guard or wing to be able to play him. Green plugs into any contending team with a star of any style.

Like or hate him, I think Lowe's description of context-sensitive star for Green is pretty accurate.

Also, weird you would quote EvanZ's impact numbers but then say Green is not actually that great a player. EvanZ has been RABID about him from day one because of those numbers. RABID. He was probably on the Green is freaking amazing train earlier and harder than anyone. His signature on GSOM is a quote mocking someone saying Green was okay but can't dribble, pass, or shoot.

It's like quoting Sonny the Cuckoo saying cereal is just part of a complete breakfast as an argument against being cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Not really.....I get that Evan loves the guy, but I'd be interested if he thinks he's really as good as Curry or if he'd put him in the range of top 30. His numbers say he's about the same as Curry in impact. That's why I quoted him (And I said in my quote Bev isn't to the same extent, that's what I meant). I'd be pretty surprised if Evan was so high on Dray he said yep, he's up there with Curry, its like if you asked Sonny the Cuckoo "Can Cocoa Puffs be part of a healthy breakfast?" and he said "They're the healthiest breakfast!". To me I ddon't see how anyone can say that. And I actually like that Lowe term (though prefer Quo's "super role player" more).

As for Lowe, seems there's a split on him here too haha. Personally I find him long winded and occasionally insightful but feels like he wants to try to over complicate things at times. Similar to his old boss tbh.

Edit: Should add that he is still a smart guy, don't get me wrong, but he comes off to me as wanting to sound smart is his writing style, which is something I can't stand.

[PaulieWal]

Yes, Lowe does refer to the people he's talking to a lot these days on his podcasts. Even with that he's the best basketball analyst around IMO. I obviously don't agree with 100% of what he says but when it comes to getting good basketball analysis I don't see anyone else on the horizon even close to him. That's kinda sad actually. We have been reduced to hot takes in this era of social media and ESPN "analysts" are no more than paid trolls who don't even understand the game really.

The good analysts to listen to these days are Lowe, Habserstroh, Pelton, and even Amin Elhassan (if you can get past his whole "I am a dick" routine which can be grating). I am sure I am missing a couple but you count the number of rational analysts on your fingertips.

[The High Cyde]

Real GM's own Nate Duncan is pretty good. Bit boring at times, but I think he's solid. It's funny I hated his voice at first, but it grew on me haha

[PaulieWal]

Real GM's own Nate Duncan is pretty good. Bit boring at times, but I think he's solid. It's funny I hated his voice at first, but it grew on me haha

Yes, him too. I have been listening to his podcasts for a couple of months now.

[Doctor MJ]

Lowe doesn't come off as pretentious or arrogant. Though he is a bit of a name dropper, he loves to constantly reference all the important people around the league he is talking to in a way that often comes off as excessive. It's reminiscent of Peter King at times, though Lowe isn't quite at that level.

To be honest, when he talks about "executives", I think he is just covering his bases so that we know he's not pulling stuff out of his butt. Unlike most sportswriters Lowe was an actual journalist at one point and so stuff like this is essentially ingrained just to cover yourself. I don't think he does it to be pretentious. It's just that in basketball the only actual sources are executives and so when he does this he ends up starting too many sentences with "I spoke to a couple executives...", "Every executive I've spoken to...", "Many high-ranking league officials...".

So yeah, I can see why that's obnoxious, but I think it's just a tic of his.

Right, sometimes namecheck because they are insecure. The person who is trying to make himself feel better than you is insecure. The person who doesn't think their own voice carries enough weight is insecure. Lowe may have some of the former in him, but in general its the latter for almost any writer like this. Because that insecurity is actually a real thing, and realizing that you also realize how silly you look if you present yourself as a braggart.

For the record my thoughts on Lowe:

To me he's set a new standard for basketball writers since he's gone to Grantland. Back when I was writing my blog 5 years ago I really didn't look around the internet and see folks were that impressive to me. Plenty of good reads, but no "5 tool players" to use baseball parlance - and that included Lowe at SI incidentally. But he really up'ed his game and I just don't see how people can brush him aside at this point.

In terms negative personality traits, the one thing I'll say was interesting is that he seemed to me like he was sounding more and more impatient in the podcasts with Bill Simmons toward the end. Someone listening to those could understandably see him as a bit of a jerk. Honestly it struck me as odd but I didn't think too much about it given how much Simmons had done for Lowe. I have no doubt that Lowe likes Simmons and is grateful to him, so I don't think he was meaning to be impatient with him...but at the same time there's a very real truth to the fact that Simmons was the lead basketball guy for Grantland despite the fact that everyone including Simmons knew Lowe was actually the better basketball analyst and Simmons out of the way means Grantland is getting more of that. Not saying ESPN got rid of Simmons because of Lowe - I don't believe that for a minute - but Lowe is going to get some new opportunities now.

Oh also, to me on Lowe's podcast he doesn't sound arrogant at all. He comes prepared with thoughts and questions and seems to listen like a sponge to the answers.

[bondom34]

FYI Doc or anyone, if I sounded like I was dismissing Lowe, I wasn't. I agree he is the best out there, and really smart. I just think sometimes he wants to be the smartest guy in the room when he doesn't need to sell it that way. I always go back to my HS and college days, and the smartest profs I had were the ones who were humble and made the material accessible and simplified it down.

[TaylorMonkey]

I think top 20-30 starts to split hairs and players are more alike than in that range tha. Say 1-10.
I think he'd fit in a few places, but the issue with me is for about the top 20-30 guys, you're taking a guy you can build around and plug anyone in, where Green is a guy who you plug in after you have that guy. After that you start taking the Green types who can be the second best on a winner, as he's got a ton of impact but its so based off of fit that I couldn't take him higher. I put Evan Z's metric on here a few pages ago and he described it well, its the same to a lesser extent w/ Pat Beverly, he's got great impact numbers but it doesn't mean he's that great a player.

I definitely agree that Green is not the guy you build around, but the guy you build around that guy with. I would say the same of say, a Dennis Rodman, who Green is kind of a thrifty man's version of.

Green is a much more impactful and versatile player than Patrick Beverley though. Beverley is much more niche and a role player. He's pretty much a rich man's Dellavedova. You pretty much need to have a ball dominant 2 guard or wing to be able to play him. Green plugs into any contending team with a star of any style.

Like or hate him, I think Lowe's description of context-sensitive star for Green is pretty accurate.

Also, weird you would quote EvanZ's impact numbers but then say Green is not actually that great a player. EvanZ has been RABID about him from day one because of those numbers. RABID. He was probably on the Green is freaking amazing train earlier and harder than anyone. His signature on GSOM is a quote mocking someone saying Green was okay but can't dribble, pass, or shoot.

It's like quoting Sonny the Cuckoo saying cereal is just part of a complete breakfast as an argument against being cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Not really.....I get that Evan loves the guy, but I'd be interested if he thinks he's really as good as Curry or if he'd put him in the range of top 30. His numbers say he's about the same as Curry in impact. That's why I quoted him (And I said in my quote Bev isn't to the same extent, that's what I meant). I'd be pretty surprised if Evan was so high on Dray he said yep, he's up there with Curry, its like if you asked Sonny the Cuckoo "Can Cocoa Puffs be part of a healthy breakfast?" and he said "They're the healthiest breakfast!". To me I ddon't see how anyone can say that. And I actually like that Lowe term (though prefer Quo's "super role player" more).

As for Lowe, seems there's a split on him here too haha. Personally I find him long winded and occasionally insightful but feels like he wants to try to over complicate things at times. Similar to his old boss tbh.

Edit: Should add that he is still a smart guy, don't get me wrong, but he comes off to me as wanting to sound smart is his writing style, which is something I can't stand.

I don't think Green is up there with Curry, who's a top 3-4 and a top 1-2 this year. Green is obviously not that and I don't think EvanZ would think that either, but he probably has him as a top 20 with a top 5-10 impact. Maybe he'll give his two cents.

There's nothing much wrong with wanting to sound smart if you actually are smart. Smart arguments should sound smart. It's when you want to sound smarter than you really are or your arguments don't actually justify your tone is when you get into trouble. I don't see Lowe doing that and I see his style as making intelligent analysis accessible. It's funny that we should be talking about Lowe because in his last podcast he went on a tangent about how journalists all secretly think they actually suck, including himself. Didn't seem like something a pompous person would spontaneously admit or wax about.

FYI Doc or anyone, if I sounded like I was dismissing Lowe, I wasn't. I agree he is the best out there, and really smart. I just think sometimes he wants to be the smartest guy in the room when he doesn't need to sell it that way. I always go back to my HS and college days, and the smartest profs I had were the ones who were humble and made the material accessible and simplified it down.

Weird, because I read this immediately after I posted the above regarding accessibility. I think this is exactly what Lowe does. At no time did I ever feel he makes things more complicated than they needed to be. I'm not sure he can dumb things down more without losing the details that help me understand the nuances of what's going on.

[bondom34]

I guess different strokes for different folks. I definitely get that vibe, and an occasional bias for or against certain teams (for Boston a bit for ex.).

[PaulieWal]

I guess different strokes for different folks. I definitely get that vibe, and an occasional bias for or against certain teams (for Boston a bit for ex.).

That might be the Simmons effect for you lol. He's definitely not biased for Boston of all teams and I don't think he's biased, if at all. I remember a few podcasts where Simmons would be doing his Boston homer shtick and Lowe would tell him to stop overrating Boston.

Lowe also wrote an article a couple of years ago how being an analyst has killed fandom (of teams and players) for him and now he's just a fan of the game.

[bondom34]

I guess different strokes for different folks. I definitely get that vibe, and an occasional bias for or against certain teams (for Boston a bit for ex.).

That might be the Simmons effect for you lol. He's definitely not biased for Boston of all teams and I don't think he's biased, if at all. I remember a few podcasts where Simmons would be doing his Boston homer shtick and Lowe would tell him to stop overrating Boston.

Lowe also wrote an article a couple of years ago how being an analyst has killed fandom (of teams and players) for him and now he's just a fan of the game.

Oh, not to Simmons level no way . That's nearly impossible, but the recent Charlotte piece for example, just because I remember it, propped up Boston's trade offer like Charlotte was completely irresponsible to not take it at times, when really it was a pretty underwhelming bunch of stuff for the 9th pick (a mid and late first, a pick from MIN that likely turns into 2 second rounders, and what was more likely the 2018 Nets pick that's a complete unknown). So really that shouldn't be enough to get the 9th pick, but he propped it up to be a deal they should have taken when in reality, it probably wasn't. You can even hate the Kaminsky pick but the value wasn't likely really there.

[Onus]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSp1ehqQZIs[/youtube]

This mixtape makes you really question is this level impact really just who Draymond is? I mean he went to 3 Final Fours in 4 years at Michigan State, all time leading rebounder there. Does he really just do all the little things that help you win? Perhaps he really is Pippen to Curry's Jordan ...

[giordunk]

Nope not even close, good player but definitely not top 20.

He is, he is probably the only playe in the Entire NBA that can do everything.

No he's not....top 20 players are guys that can actually lead a team if need be and be the number 1 option on O. I've seen a lot of players in my time do what he did, some even better.

For the last time, a guy like Kevin Martin or Danny Granger or Corey Maggette can all do this better than Draymond. They can all 'lead' a team on offense and be a number one option on offense. However, replace Draymond with any of these players and Warriors do not win the title.

Everyone calls Draymond a jack of all trades, master of none, but no. He is the best in the league at defensive versatility. The most valuable defensive skill in today's game is containing perimeter player, and there is no big in the NBA that does it better than him.