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

[bondom34]

I was more talking about your statement that Draymond doesn't have much impact on Philly or Orlando. I also think it is false to say Draymond is good because of the team he's on. He will always be a good player, it is just that his strengths are elite in making a good team great and his deficiencies are in areas that make a bad team good. Does that really matter in the end if he can't make a bad team decent?

Ah, sorry on that. I worded poorly which was my mistake. What I'm trying to say is that to me, a top 10 player is a guy who you take in the top 10 picks if you're disbanding the league and everyone starts over. Green is good, but he's not as impactful of 90 percent of teams as he is on GSW, as you said he will always be good, but I don't think he would be nearly as high in impact metrics. They're largely showing how good a guy is at doing exactly his role on his team. Green fits his role perfectly which increases impact. If you move him to a random team, he doesn't fit as well as he does with Curry/Klay/Bogut, and his impact drops. Good players can fit anywhere, impactful ones are good ones who fit in.

[bondom34]

Draymond is discussed incessantly because as a collective group (of hardcore NBA fans) we are undergoing an unprecedented ideological shift in how players are measured and valued. And this is not only based on us fanatics opinions, but is also reflected in front office decisions across the league.

Since the recording of basketball statistics players have been solely measured on ppg, rpg, and apg. The 90's Chicago Bulls teams had an incredible host of players that were vastly undervalued by the rest of the league in accordance with these standards: Horace Grant, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc (there can be an argument made that all these players aside from Harper would generate a near max-max contract in the current league environment!). Now two decades later front offices are finally evaluating players on other criteria: impact stats, advanced defense stats, plus/minus stats, proficiencies in highly desirable skill-sets, and are finally asking the questions: How do we compare an elite defensive player vs. a great offensive player?

Teams are recognizing that volume scorers are guess what...role players. Scoring is fulfilling a role on a team. Playmaking is fulfilling a role on a team. Molding a team's entire defensive strategy on the strengths of one player is fulfilling a role on the team. How do we go about comparing a scoring/playmaking role vs. a defensive role?

I think Winsome Gerbil is going too far comparing Green (an elite defensive player) with decent to good scoring players. Because this line of thinking is clearly archaic. But also, elite offense playmakers have more value than elite defense players due to them being able to impact more possessions, so ranking Green in the top 10-15 players is going too far also. Personally, I would firmly put Green in the top 20-30 desireable talents in the league, for now.

And to be clear, the bold is about where I have him too, I'm protesting the top 10 argument.

[Dr Spaceman]

Oh, and I missed this before but didn't have time to look into it. RE: FFAPM, there are others who've put up as good or better numbers who haven't been regarded this highly. That's the issue to me with using those numbers for that conclusion. Omer Asik was even better in 2012 than Dray's numbers, Josh Smith the same. Yet neither would be considered this highly. Dray, like Smith, has a very specific skillset you can use to help put a team over the top. Dray however also has a much better basketball brain, but that's not the difference in vaulting him into a top 10 spot.

Well the most important thing to clear up here is that this is just another data point. I've been through this with you before, but I was pushing Draymond as a top 10 candidate since the beginning of the season, and these numbers came out in February.

Fundamentally here this is the cycle we've fallen into: I (or Doc or whoever) present a stat that indicates that Draymond is one of the best players in the league. The response is two-pronged: one side a dismissal of Green as a "role player" and thus these numbers are wrong, and the other side a criticism of the specific numbers (not Green's numbers, mind you, but criticisms of RAPM and the like as a whole).

Now you've mentioned in the past that you object to RAPM as a starting point, because you think that those of us who favor it take it as a starting point and work backwards to find the truth. Here's my contention: that is literally how science works. You make an observation, develop a theory, and then set up conditions to test that theory.

So it's the same song and dance now a few times. We come with RAPM data. That's not good enough, because RAPM is noisy and affected by lineups. Okay. We come with playoff on/off data, which shows not just that Green is a top-shelf player, but the best player in the entire league. You dismiss that too, because... well I don't remember off the top of my head. And now you see this data, and... you dismiss it because it makes Omer Asik and Josh Smith look really good too.

So what gets lost in the micro-debates is that you've now dismissed A TON of data, and from what I can tell mostly because the conclusions don't vibrate in sync with the one you already hold. But the point here is that this. is. a. lot. of. data. and as such, we've now shifted from it being a mere coincidence to this being a real phenomenon. I've asked you before, but just so there is no uncertainty:

You need to give Draymond-specific reasons why these numbers are painting a false picture. because it's now so overwhelming that they should be taken as the default.

Tell me honestly: would you have ever predicted that a player with Draymond's skill set would be dominating to this degree? If the answer is no, perhaps you should update your methods for evaluating "goodness" to account for this. My love of Draymond is a direct result of me realizing that I didn't have a way to account for a player like him being this good. If your schema for "goodness" puts Draymond in a place where he's far below what all the evidence is pointing to, then just maybe the fault lies not with Draymond but with a thought process that is too rigid and exclusive.

If you "want" someone to be in a certain position, you will do everything in your power to uphold that identity. No amount of information will shake you from that ground. If, however, you want the "truth" (i.e. you care about the most accurate rankings regardless of the names attached to the rankings), you will constantly challenge your own beliefs instead of desperately trying to defend them.

Re: Smith, he was a very good defensive player and I had no issues with him being a serious DPOY candidate. He had a stellar two-year defensive peak which was cut short by his lack of a brain. He also brought nowhere close to Draymond's offensive value.

Re: Asik, remember he was a low-minute player 4th in the rotation behind Noah/Booz/Taj. Can't compare him to full-time players. Also is arguably the worst offensive player in the league.

[PaulieWal]

We come with playoff on/off data, which shows not just that Green is a top-shelf player, but the best player in the entire league

I am sorry if this sounds harsh but you really should burn any data that tells you he's the best player in the league let alone on the Warriors.

[mischievous]

We come with playoff on/off data, which shows not just that Green is a top-shelf player, but the best player in the entire league

I am sorry if this sounds harsh but you really should burn any data that tells you he's the best player in the league let alone on the Warriors.

Yeah that comment is just pure silliness.

[bondom34]

We come with playoff on/off data, which shows not just that Green is a top-shelf player, but the best player in the entire league.

And yes, I dismiss this. I don't even really know what else to say other than "he's not".

[bondom34]

Oh, and I missed this before but didn't have time to look into it. RE: FFAPM, there are others who've put up as good or better numbers who haven't been regarded this highly. That's the issue to me with using those numbers for that conclusion. Omer Asik was even better in 2012 than Dray's numbers, Josh Smith the same. Yet neither would be considered this highly. Dray, like Smith, has a very specific skillset you can use to help put a team over the top. Dray however also has a much better basketball brain, but that's not the difference in vaulting him into a top 10 spot.

Well the most important thing to clear up here is that this is just another data point. I've been through this with you before, but I was pushing Draymond as a top 10 candidate since the beginning of the season, and these numbers came out in February.

Fundamentally here this is the cycle we've fallen into: I (or Doc or whoever) present a stat that indicates that Draymond is one of the best players in the league. The response is two-pronged: one side a dismissal of Green as a "role player" and thus these numbers are wrong, and the other side a criticism of the specific numbers (not Green's numbers, mind you, but criticisms of RAPM and the like as a whole).

Now you've mentioned in the past that you object to RAPM as a starting point, because you think that those of us who favor it take it as a starting point and work backwards to find the truth. Here's my contention: that is literally how science works. You make an observation, develop a theory, and then set up conditions to test that theory.

So it's the same song and dance now a few times. We come with RAPM data. That's not good enough, because RAPM is noisy and affected by lineups. Okay. We come with playoff on/off data, which shows not just that Green is a top-shelf player, but the best player in the entire league. You dismiss that too, because... well I don't remember off the top of my head. And now you see this data, and... you dismiss it because it makes Omer Asik and Josh Smith look really good too.

So what gets lost in the micro-debates is that you've now dismissed A TON of data, and from what I can tell mostly because the conclusions don't vibrate in sync with the one you already hold. But the point here is that this. is. a. lot. of. data. and as such, we've now shifted from it being a mere coincidence to this being a real phenomenon. I've asked you before, but just so there is no uncertainty:

You need to give Draymond-specific reasons why these numbers are painting a false picture. because it's now so overwhelming that they should be taken as the default.

Tell me honestly: would you have ever predicted that a player with Draymond's skill set would be dominating to this degree? If the answer is no, perhaps you should update your methods for evaluating "goodness" to account for this. My love of Draymond is a direct result of me realizing that I didn't have a way to account for a player like him being this good. If your schema for "goodness" puts Draymond in a place where he's far below what all the evidence is pointing to, then just maybe the fault lies not with Draymond but with a thought process that is too rigid and exclusive.

If you "want" someone to be in a certain position, you will do everything in your power to uphold that identity. No amount of information will shake you from that ground. If, however, you want the "truth" (i.e. you care about the most accurate rankings regardless of the names attached to the rankings), you will constantly challenge your own beliefs instead of desperately trying to defend them.

Re: Smith, he was a very good defensive player and I had no issues with him being a serious DPOY candidate. He had a stellar two-year defensive peak which was cut short by his lack of a brain. He also brought nowhere close to Draymond's offensive value.

Re: Asik, remember he was a low-minute player 4th in the rotation behind Noah/Booz/Taj. Can't compare him to full-time players. Also is arguably the worst offensive player in the league.

Re: The RAPM thing, no I'm not sure what you're painting me as doing here. I was a fan of the stat until I had a few issues with it pop up midseason. Said issues made me relook at how I was really valuating players and realize that I just don't think its a perfect metric to use unless you're using fit as well.

Re: Predictions, no, but honestly I don't predict much. I wouldn't have predicted Harden (6th MOY to MVP candidate who improved both efficiency and volume?) would have been this good, or Curry (college 2 who had questionable PG ability from a small school who was too small), or Westbrook (never even started at PG in college, seemed to not have PG type skills), or others.

I. haven't. dismissed. a. ton. of. data. either. We've gone through the circle before, and I keep pointing to problems that RAPM has for evaluating a player overall when you're not considering his role. That's what is the issue at hand. You take Green and put him on a team of replacement level guys and he doesn't elevate them. You do the same with Harden/Curry/Lebron/Westbrook/Davis/Durant/Paul/Cousins/Wall/Griffin which is at least 10, and I'd name more as well.

For Green specific reasons, he's a fantastic defensive player who doesn't protect the rim much if at all, and is a capable passer who doesn't shoot particularly well though he's good enough. You need a team who's got the missing pieces around him. Stick him on Detroit last year who lacked spacing and there's an issue. Put him somewhere with no big to protect the paint, issues. Put him on GSW who's got spacing out the wazzoo and Bogut in the paint and you have the missing piece of the puzzle.

Edit: And, yet again, a case study using on/off. If I'm to believe this, the best/most impactful player on the Thunder (who remind you I watch quite a large amount of) this season was.....wait for it.........Anthony Morrow?

Again, Morrow was fantastic at what he did. So is Green, and yes, Green is clearly better than Morrow. But that's the issue here. Role matters, that's why these guys are where they are.

[bondom34]

Oh, and..

Re: Smith, his FFAPM numbers on offense were as good as or better than Green's as well.

[Dr Spaceman]

Re: Predictions, no, but honestly I don't predict much. I wouldn't have predicted Harden (6th MOY to MVP candidate who improved both efficiency and volume?) would have been this good, or Curry (college 2 who had questionable PG ability from a small school who was too small), or Westbrook (never even started at PG in college, seemed to not have PG type skills), or others.

That's fine, but my point here is that the fact that historically stars haven't looked like Green shouldn't stop you from seeing Green as a star. And it seems like that is factoring a lot into your thought process.

You take Green and put him on a team of replacement level guys and he doesn't elevate them. You do the same with Harden/Curry/Lebron/Westbrook/Davis/Durant/Paul/Cousins/Wall/Griffin which is at least 10, and I'd name more as well.

But again, why? Is it just your intuition? Fine, but be up front about that and we can agree to disagree. Is it some other data you've got? If so, please share.

For Green specific reasons, he's a fantastic defensive player who doesn't protect the rim much if at all, and is a capable passer who doesn't shoot particularly well though he's good enough. You need a team who's got the missing pieces around him. Stick him on Detroit last year who lacked spacing and there's an issue. Put him somewhere with no big to protect the paint, issues. Put him on GSW who's got spacing out the wazzoo and Bogut in the paint and you have the missing piece of the puzzle.

Well Re: Bogut, he missed a huge chunk of season in which his team went 9-3. He also averaged under 24 minutes per game this season. And by now everyone knows what happens when Green moves to center; that lineup literally won them the Finals.

Point being: if anyone has a small role on that team, it's Bogut not Draymond.

Re: spacing, I suppose there's legitimate reason to think his offense could fall off, but we're still talking about the DPOY runner-up here. There's no reason to think he couldn't do massively good things for Detroit.

Again I don't know where you get such confidence in this projection.

Anyway, here's a post across the court made that I found really enlightening:

Spoiler:

Manu started every game in 2005 and was first in prior-informed and NPI RAPM in 2005. He wasn't a sixth man then. He was a part of their crunchtime lineups (he has been for a long time) and was often the primary ballhandler in close games.

Yet advanced plus/minus metrics perform very well at predicting future wins, particularly when there's a lot of roster turnover.

You see what that means? That even with a new context the player values attached to RAPM are useful? It's not rotation trends. If it was rotation trends, then when we tested the metric out of sample with future seasons it wouldn't perform well. But it does well.

It's not a relic of rotational weirdness. But you know what? Other metrics have problems like that. Jason Collins sets a screen, gets Vince Carter open, doesn't get credit for it. Jason Collins plays Dwight Howard well, holding him to 16 points on middling efficiency without much help. He does this without blocked shots, so he doesn't get credit for it in the box score. PER ignores him.

JJ Hickson crashes the boards, picks up rebounds, sometimes steals them from teammates, hits a lot of shots inside, plays terrible help defense but still picks up steals, and looks great on PER. Yet when he's replaced with Robin Lopez Portland jumps up 20 wins (it wasn't just Lillard's improvement.)

Carmelo outscored Durant in 2013. Who was the better scorer?

Alex English led the 80's in points. Who was the best scorer in the 80's? And best player?

Adrian Dantley looks comparable by PER to Bird from like '80 to '86. Who was the better player?

Chris Andersen led the 2013 playoffs in WS/48 minutes. Was he the best player?

Zach Randolph had more Defensive Win Shares than Noah in 2014. Who was the better defender?

Boozer was 13th and Rudy Gay was 17th in Defensive Win Shares. Were they great defenders?

All stats have problems. But we shouldn't ignore every stat because they're not perfect.

You can nitpick all you want, find the weirdest results and make fun of them, but that is no way to rate a metric or system. You do that systematically with EVERY result (if you can.) No one's saying RAPM is perfect. There are flaws. There's noise.

The important part:

Yet advanced plus/minus metrics perform very well at predicting future wins, particularly when there's a lot of roster turnover.

You see what that means? That even with a new context the player values attached to RAPM are useful? It's not rotation trends. If it was rotation trends, then when we tested the metric out of sample with future seasons it wouldn't perform well. But it does well.

The type of wild season-to-season swings in impact you're predicting generally don't happen.

[bondom34]

Re: Predictions, no, but honestly I don't predict much. I wouldn't have predicted Harden (6th MOY to MVP candidate who improved both efficiency and volume?) would have been this good, or Curry (college 2 who had questionable PG ability from a small school who was too small), or Westbrook (never even started at PG in college, seemed to not have PG type skills), or others.

That's fine, but my point here is that the fact that historically stars haven't looked like Green shouldn't stop you from seeing Green as a star. And it seems like that is factoring a lot into your thought process.

You take Green and put him on a team of replacement level guys and he doesn't elevate them. You do the same with Harden/Curry/Lebron/Westbrook/Davis/Durant/Paul/Cousins/Wall/Griffin which is at least 10, and I'd name more as well.

But again, why? Is it just your intuition? Fine, but be up front about that and we can agree to disagree. Is it some other data you've got? If so, please share.

For Green specific reasons, he's a fantastic defensive player who doesn't protect the rim much if at all, and is a capable passer who doesn't shoot particularly well though he's good enough. You need a team who's got the missing pieces around him. Stick him on Detroit last year who lacked spacing and there's an issue. Put him somewhere with no big to protect the paint, issues. Put him on GSW who's got spacing out the wazzoo and Bogut in the paint and you have the missing piece of the puzzle.

Well Re: Bogut, he missed a huge chunk of season in which his team went 9-3. He also averaged under 24 minutes per game this season. And by now everyone knows what happens when Green moves to center; that lineup literally won them the Finals.

Point being: if anyone has a small role on that team, it's Bogut not Draymond.

Re: spacing, I suppose there's legitimate reason to think his offense could fall off, but we're still talking about the DPOY runner-up here. There's no reason to think he couldn't do massively good things for Detroit.

Again I don't know where you get such confidence in this projection.

Anyway, here's a post across the court made that I found really enlightening:

Spoiler:

Manu started every game in 2005 and was first in prior-informed and NPI RAPM in 2005. He wasn't a sixth man then. He was a part of their crunchtime lineups (he has been for a long time) and was often the primary ballhandler in close games.

Yet advanced plus/minus metrics perform very well at predicting future wins, particularly when there's a lot of roster turnover.

You see what that means? That even with a new context the player values attached to RAPM are useful? It's not rotation trends. If it was rotation trends, then when we tested the metric out of sample with future seasons it wouldn't perform well. But it does well.

It's not a relic of rotational weirdness. But you know what? Other metrics have problems like that. Jason Collins sets a screen, gets Vince Carter open, doesn't get credit for it. Jason Collins plays Dwight Howard well, holding him to 16 points on middling efficiency without much help. He does this without blocked shots, so he doesn't get credit for it in the box score. PER ignores him.

JJ Hickson crashes the boards, picks up rebounds, sometimes steals them from teammates, hits a lot of shots inside, plays terrible help defense but still picks up steals, and looks great on PER. Yet when he's replaced with Robin Lopez Portland jumps up 20 wins (it wasn't just Lillard's improvement.)

Carmelo outscored Durant in 2013. Who was the better scorer?

Alex English led the 80's in points. Who was the best scorer in the 80's? And best player?

Adrian Dantley looks comparable by PER to Bird from like '80 to '86. Who was the better player?

Chris Andersen led the 2013 playoffs in WS/48 minutes. Was he the best player?

Zach Randolph had more Defensive Win Shares than Noah in 2014. Who was the better defender?

Boozer was 13th and Rudy Gay was 17th in Defensive Win Shares. Were they great defenders?

All stats have problems. But we shouldn't ignore every stat because they're not perfect.

You can nitpick all you want, find the weirdest results and make fun of them, but that is no way to rate a metric or system. You do that systematically with EVERY result (if you can.) No one's saying RAPM is perfect. There are flaws. There's noise.

The important part:

Yet advanced plus/minus metrics perform very well at predicting future wins, particularly when there's a lot of roster turnover.

You see what that means? That even with a new context the player values attached to RAPM are useful? It's not rotation trends. If it was rotation trends, then when we tested the metric out of sample with future seasons it wouldn't perform well. But it does well.

The type of wild season-to-season swings in impact you're predicting generally don't happen.

My issue with the idea of "wild swings" isn't that I'm predicting them to really happen. Its that I would if Green were dropped onto some random team where he wasn't fit to the exact role being asked of him currently. I'd expect him to drop if he changed roles the following year. I see Green as a guy like a Josh Smith as said above, he's a super role player who fits well and excels at what he's great at. He's smarter than Smith though which boosts him. Smiths numbers as said above were similar or better than Green's on both sides, and that seems his place by most measures. RAPM needs to take usage and role into account. Green's usage was 3rd among starters for GSW, and his role was as the 2nd or 3rd best guy on the team. That's context. Ultimately, that's what RAPM needs that is being missed in a statement saying something like Green is the best player in the league or even on his own team.

As for measures I'm using, its simple. You take a player off his team and put him on a generic team w/ all replacement level players, what does he do?

[DreDay]

I was more talking about your statement that Draymond doesn't have much impact on Philly or Orlando. I also think it is false to say Draymond is good because of the team he's on. He will always be a good player, it is just that his strengths are elite in making a good team great and his deficiencies are in areas that make a bad team good. Does that really matter in the end if he can't make a bad team decent?

Ah, sorry on that. I worded poorly which was my mistake. What I'm trying to say is that to me, a top 10 player is a guy who you take in the top 10 picks if you're disbanding the league and everyone starts over. Green is good, but he's not as impactful of 90 percent of teams as he is on GSW, as you said he will always be good, but I don't think he would be nearly as high in impact metrics. They're largely showing how good a guy is at doing exactly his role on his team. Green fits his role perfectly which increases impact. If you move him to a random team, he doesn't fit as well as he does with Curry/Klay/Bogut, and his impact drops. Good players can fit anywhere, impactful ones are good ones who fit in.

I agree I wouldn't consider him a top 10 player, but then again if you're disbanding the league, why would you take a mediocre #1 option after, lets say pick #13 or so? My point is, there's a limited amount quality #1's (5 or so?) that a great building block in Green should not be necessarily overlooked because he can't carry a bad team. Besides, how many 'good players' are there in the league? I'm struggling to come up with a decent amount.

You're choosing to look at Green's system fit as somewhat of a negative. I think it's more of a positive. How many players possess his skillset in the league? Elite perimeter and interior D, with a versatile but not great offensive game? Yeah he's not going to carry a team, but like I've said, not many players can, so why not take the player who has demonstrated the impact to make your team better on both ends of the court at a high level? Some of the impact may be the system, but I can't think of a team that couldn't use Green's attributes, even if they would not necessarily lead to more wins on a bad team.

As for measures I'm using, its simple. You take a player off his team and put him on a generic team w/ all replacement level players, what does he do?

Is this really the best measure though? This is very slanted towards volume scorers who don't offer much else. Guys like Monta, Kevin Martin, Rudy Gay etc. will all thrive whilst others with not much offensive help would not.

Here's the fallacy. Those above players aren't good enough offensive players to win a championship as a top 2 scoring option. Green doesn't pretend to be that player. That doesn't mean he's not a way better player than them value wise.

[theonlyclutch]

As for measures I'm using, its simple. You take a player off his team and put him on a generic team w/ all replacement level players, what does he do?

That's...troubling, mainly because it doesn't take into account the scalability of a player's impact, a team of replacement level players is going to be a terrible team by definition, so what you would be actually measuring is solely how much lift one could have on a bad team.

E.g - Someone like Iverson would most likely have very substantial impact on that team, but would that translate to impact for good teams to turn them into contender-level teams?

[bondom34]

I was more talking about your statement that Draymond doesn't have much impact on Philly or Orlando. I also think it is false to say Draymond is good because of the team he's on. He will always be a good player, it is just that his strengths are elite in making a good team great and his deficiencies are in areas that make a bad team good. Does that really matter in the end if he can't make a bad team decent?

Ah, sorry on that. I worded poorly which was my mistake. What I'm trying to say is that to me, a top 10 player is a guy who you take in the top 10 picks if you're disbanding the league and everyone starts over. Green is good, but he's not as impactful of 90 percent of teams as he is on GSW, as you said he will always be good, but I don't think he would be nearly as high in impact metrics. They're largely showing how good a guy is at doing exactly his role on his team. Green fits his role perfectly which increases impact. If you move him to a random team, he doesn't fit as well as he does with Curry/Klay/Bogut, and his impact drops. Good players can fit anywhere, impactful ones are good ones who fit in.

I agree I wouldn't consider him a top 10 player, but then again if you're disbanding the league, why would you take a mediocre #1 option after, lets say pick #13 or so? My point is, there's a limited amount quality #1's (5 or so?) that a great building block in Green should not be necessarily overlooked because he can't carry a bad team. Besides, how many 'good players' are there in the league? I'm struggling to come up with a decent amount.

You're choosing to look at Green's system fit as somewhat of a negative. I think it's more of a positive. How many players possess his skillset in the league? Elite perimeter and interior D, with a versatile but not great offensive game? Yeah he's not going to carry a team, but like I've said, not many players can, so why not take the player who has demonstrated the impact to make your team better on both ends of the court at a high level? Some of the impact may be the system, but I can't think of a team that couldn't use Green's attributes, even if they would not necessarily lead to more wins on a bad team.

I pretty much agree, but I think I'd just value players differently, maybe due to a perspective of someone who doesn't have him on my own team. If I'm starting a team from scratch, I want the piece to build my entire team around, who I think can be the main piece of a puzzle. Green to me is the final piece, the guy that holds all the others together. Without the others, he's not what he is, but what he is is fantastic. To me, he's more in the range of a Klay/Ibaka/Butler type guy who's a great number 2 or 3 on a title contender but not a 1. If I'm drafting I want a guy like a Harden/Curry/Durant/Lebron/Westbrook/Love/Wall/Paul/Griffin/Cousins/PG/Gasol or a few others who may be a little less well rounded but excel so much in a certain area that you can use them as the foundation of a great team. I think here we're agreeing mostly, just disagreeing on how to put a team together.

[bondom34]

As for measures I'm using, its simple. You take a player off his team and put him on a generic team w/ all replacement level players, what does he do?

That's...troubling, mainly because it doesn't take into account the scalability of a player's impact, a team of replacement level players is going to be a terrible team by definition, so what you would be actually measuring is solely how much lift one could have on a bad team.

E.g - Someone like Iverson would most likely have very substantial impact on that team, but would that translate to impact for good teams to turn them into contender-level teams?

Maybe I shouldn't say it that way, but maybe "average" players makes more sense. I'm again looking at who I can build around, that's what Im getting at. Poor wording and didn't know how to put it. As for Iverson, he was pretty successful and with even an average cast he could win.

[bondom34]

I was more talking about your statement that Draymond doesn't have much impact on Philly or Orlando. I also think it is false to say Draymond is good because of the team he's on. He will always be a good player, it is just that his strengths are elite in making a good team great and his deficiencies are in areas that make a bad team good. Does that really matter in the end if he can't make a bad team decent?

Ah, sorry on that. I worded poorly which was my mistake. What I'm trying to say is that to me, a top 10 player is a guy who you take in the top 10 picks if you're disbanding the league and everyone starts over. Green is good, but he's not as impactful of 90 percent of teams as he is on GSW, as you said he will always be good, but I don't think he would be nearly as high in impact metrics. They're largely showing how good a guy is at doing exactly his role on his team. Green fits his role perfectly which increases impact. If you move him to a random team, he doesn't fit as well as he does with Curry/Klay/Bogut, and his impact drops. Good players can fit anywhere, impactful ones are good ones who fit in.

I agree I wouldn't consider him a top 10 player, but then again if you're disbanding the league, why would you take a mediocre #1 option after, lets say pick #13 or so? My point is, there's a limited amount quality #1's (5 or so?) that a great building block in Green should not be necessarily overlooked because he can't carry a bad team. Besides, how many 'good players' are there in the league? I'm struggling to come up with a decent amount.

You're choosing to look at Green's system fit as somewhat of a negative. I think it's more of a positive. How many players possess his skillset in the league? Elite perimeter and interior D, with a versatile but not great offensive game? Yeah he's not going to carry a team, but like I've said, not many players can, so why not take the player who has demonstrated the impact to make your team better on both ends of the court at a high level? Some of the impact may be the system, but I can't think of a team that couldn't use Green's attributes, even if they would not necessarily lead to more wins on a bad team.

As for measures I'm using, its simple. You take a player off his team and put him on a generic team w/ all replacement level players, what does he do?

Is this really the best measure though? This is very slanted towards volume scorers who don't offer much else. Guys like Monta, Kevin Martin, Rudy Gay etc. will all thrive whilst others with not much offensive help would not.

Here's the fallacy. Those above players aren't good enough offensive players to win a championship as a top 2 scoring option. Green doesn't pretend to be that player. That doesn't mean he's not a way better player than them value wise.

And I didn't quote the bottom part, as I said above you can build around a defensive player, they just need to truly truly excel anywhere in some specific areas.

[The-Power]

We come with playoff on/off data, which shows not just that Green is a top-shelf player, but the best player in the entire league

I am sorry if this sounds harsh but you really should burn any data that tells you he's the best player in the league let alone on the Warriors.

Yeah that comment is just pure silliness.

This comment isn't silly at all unlike yours. His comment presented a fact: playoff on/off data shows that Green was the best player in the entire league. There's nothing to debate about this statement, it's a fact. Dr Spacemen himself said he doesn't buy that Green has more impact than Curry, if I recall correctly, so it's not like he blindly believes in every data he uses without questioning it. But it is another data point - among others which show Green's tremendous impact, mind you - and thus shouldn't be completely disregarded just because it doesn't look right to your eyes. It doesn't mean one has to completely take it at face value or use it as the be-all and end-all evidence.

[Basileus777]

For all of his defensive impact, Green is a far more limited offensive player than some of the high praise for him would have you think. His offensive limitations were exposed in the finals where Cleveland largely got the series lead because they dared Green to beat them and he couldn't.

[G35]

I agree I wouldn't consider him a top 10 player, but then again if you're disbanding the league, why would you take a mediocre #1 option after, lets say pick #13 or so? My point is, there's a limited amount quality #1's (5 or so?) that a great building block in Green should not be necessarily overlooked because he can't carry a bad team. Besides, how many 'good players' are there in the league? I'm struggling to come up with a decent amount.

This is an interesting question and seems to be in the realm of fantasy football/basketball.

The best comparison I can think of is in fantasy football the prevailing logic was you had to get a RB in the first round, failing that at least get one in the second round. If you do not get one by the 2nd round, more than likely you will not have a legitimate starting RB due to high-demand/lack of quality starters. You can fill out your roster with other positions but those positions typically have greater depth (QB, WR). This is all dependent on your leagues scoring but many people subscribe to this theory.

It's similar to getting a quality big man in basketball. There are so few of them that teams are willing to pass on greater individual talents in order to get a first line big man.

If they threw all 400+ players into a pool and started over and all 30 teams started drafting and some franchise picked Draymond Green within the top 20 picks I would lmao. Because by the time it comes to your turn to draft again you are going to be struggling for offense. You most definitely would not have a #1 option, you might not even have a #2 option. But you will have a great utility guy to build around......

[PaulieWal]

I am sorry if this sounds harsh but you really should burn any data that tells you he's the best player in the league let alone on the Warriors.

Yeah that comment is just pure silliness.

This comment isn't silly at all unlike yours. His comment presented a fact: playoff on/off data shows that Green was the best player in the entire league. There's nothing to debate about this statement, it's a fact. Dr Spacemen himself said he doesn't buy that Green has more impact than Curry, if I recall correctly, so it's not like he blindly believes in every data he uses without questioning it. But it is another data point - among others which show Green's tremendous impact, mind you - and thus shouldn't be completely disregarded just because it doesn't look right to your eyes. It doesn't mean one has to completely take it at face value or use it as the be-all and end-all evidence.

So now on/off = player rankings?

No one here is denying his impact but it's a joke to say he was the "best player in the league in the playoffs". On/off be damned.

[The-Power]

This comment isn't silly at all unlike yours. His comment presented a fact: playoff on/off data shows that Green was the best player in the entire league. There's nothing to debate about this statement, it's a fact. Dr Spacemen himself said he doesn't buy that Green has more impact than Curry, if I recall correctly, so it's not like he blindly believes in every data he uses without questioning it. But it is another data point - among others which show Green's tremendous impact, mind you - and thus shouldn't be completely disregarded just because it doesn't look right to your eyes. It doesn't mean one has to completely take it at face value or use it as the be-all and end-all evidence.

So now on/off = player rankings?

No, and no one ever said that. It is one empirical point of reference - among others, which were also mentioned by the way - that supports the notion of Green having elite impact, though. Not more, but also not any less.