#5 Best Defensive Point Guard of All Time - The ten best defenders in each position project

[trex_8063]

.

Quoting you because, given the margins between candidates are razor-thin [imo], it was to no small degree the WOWY ppg allowed data you showed for Jerry West that persuaded me to shift my vote elsewhere.
However, I was inspired to look at WOWY ppg allowed data for a few others, just to see if there are consistent trends to be found with the other top defensive PG's (incomplete, but I'll share what I've got). The results are somewhat all over the map, from what I've looked at so far......

Dennis Johnson
‘77: 105.65 ppg with, 93.0 without (1 game) [+12.65]
‘78: 103.06 ppg with, 90.0 without (1 game) [+13.06]
‘79: 103.73 ppg with, 109.5 without (2 games) [-5.77]
‘80: 103.80 ppg with, 107.0 without (1 game) [-3.20]
‘81: 104.38 ppg with, 107.0 without (1 game) [-2.62]
‘82: 102.76 ppg with, 100.5 without (2 games) [+2.26]
‘83: 102.12 ppg with, 99.6 without (5 games) [+2.52]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): +2.70
AVG (weighted for # of games missed): +1.96


Mookie Blaylock
‘92: 106.79 ppg with, 109.1 without (10 games) [-2.31]
‘93: 108.33 ppg with, 109.5 without (2 games) [-1.17]
‘94: 96.16 ppg with, 97.0 without (1 game) [-0.84]
‘95: 95.35 ppg with, 94.0 without (2 games--one was OT game, too) [+1.35]
‘96: 96.89 ppg with, 111.0 without (1 game) [-14.11]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): -3.42
AVG (weighted for games missed): -2.36


Gary Payton
‘96: 96.74 ppg with, 97.0 without (1 game) [-0.26]
‘01: 97.28 ppg with, 97.0 without (3 games) [+0.28]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): +0.01
AVG (weighted for games missed): +0.15


Maurice Cheeks
‘82: 105.35 ppg with, 108.67 without (3 games) [-3.32]
‘83: 104.06 ppg with, 113.67 without (3 games) [-9.61]
‘84: 105.01 ppg with, 111.71 without (7 games) [-6.70]
‘85: 108.97 ppg with, 106.25 without (4 games) [+2.72]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): -4.23
AVG (weighted for games missed): -4.40


Cheeks certainly looks impressive (generally) from what I've looked at so far; and Blaylock to a lesser degree. But it seems to bounce around a lot from player to player (and from year to year within a player's sample).
Thus, I'm starting to question the reliability of this particular means, and I might be throwing my support in for Jerry West again very soon.

[uberhikari]

I have no idea what's going on anymore. Is this list about peak, prime, career value, or something else? Because Dennis Johnson doesn't seem to be the 4th best by any of the aforementioned metrics.

I vote Chris Paul.

[Gibson22]

I have no idea what's going on anymore. Is this list about peak, prime, career value, or something else? Because Dennis Johnson doesn't seem to be the 4th best by any of the aforementioned metrics.

I vote Chris Paul.

I mean you may disagree but to say that you find DJ so ridicolous that you dont know what's going on anymore...

[uberhikari]

I have no idea what's going on anymore. Is this list about peak, prime, career value, or something else? Because Dennis Johnson doesn't seem to be the 4th best by any of the aforementioned metrics.

I vote Chris Paul.

I mean you may disagree but to say that you find DJ so ridicolous that you dont know what's going on anymore...

DJ played 14 seasons. 6 of them (all prime years) were spent as a SG. 7 out of his 8 years as a PG came from his age 29-35 years. How could DJ have possibly accumulated enough defensive value to warrant being ranked #4 all time? We're talking about a defensive prime as a PG that only lasted 6-7 years.

[Gibson22]

I have no idea what's going on anymore. Is this list about peak, prime, career value, or something else? Because Dennis Johnson doesn't seem to be the 4th best by any of the aforementioned metrics.

I vote Chris Paul.

I mean you may disagree but to say that you find DJ so ridicolous that you dont know what's going on anymore...

DJ played 14 seasons. 6 of them (all prime years) were spent as a SG. 7 out of his 8 years as a PG came from his age 29-35 years. How could DJ have possibly accumulated enough defensive value to warrant being ranked #4 all time? We're talking about a defensive prime as a PG that only lasted 6-7 years.

We are considering what he did in his entire career, if we got him as a SG, we would consider his whole career too. It doesn't matter how many seasons he played as a point guard.

[pandrade83]

I'll be going Jerry West here again, with Mookie, Stockton, Buse & DJ close behind.

-Steals aren't everything, but in '74, he averaged 2.6 spg with severe leg injuries & in the final year of his career. It is highly likely that he achieved much more during his prime. West had such a high BBIQ and played with such intensity, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he wasn't a reckless defender - but rather a superb help defender.
-West was highly respected for his competitiveness - Samurai notes that in 1970, Bill Russell calls West the best defender in the game. In the '72 ASG, West is called the best defensive guard by Russell - in the same game they also note that he is averaging just under 10 steals per game for the Lakers.
-We all know West was the MVP of the '69 Finals, & I find it hard to believe they would do that unless he had a tremendous defensive impact as well as offensive.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

The one tough part about his resume is the lack of impact metrics coupled with the fact that from '64-'68, LA was below average on team D.
However, those metrics are somewhat misleading as Russell produced outlier level teams. They were usually mid-pack and that's without a strong rim protecting center.

In West's WS Peak year ('66) here are your starting centers

Phi - Chamberlain 21.4 WS/28.3 PER
Bos - Russell 11.7 WS/17.3 PER
Cin - Embry 1.5 WS/9.2 PER
NY - Bellamy 8.9 WS/19.4 PER
Bal - Red Kerr 3.1 WS/16.3 PER
Stl - Beaty 10.3 WS/18.5 PER
SF - Thurmond 4.3/ WS/15.0 PER
Det - Strawder 3.6 WS/11.6 PER

Lakers - Leroy Ellis 2.8 WS/13.0 PER

There's a credible argument that the Lakers had the 2nd worst center in the league - going up against 1/3 of the league having truly elite defenders - & still finished 5th defensively in a 9 team league.

[uberhikari]

I mean you may disagree but to say that you find DJ so ridicolous that you dont know what's going on anymore...

DJ played 14 seasons. 6 of them (all prime years) were spent as a SG. 7 out of his 8 years as a PG came from his age 29-35 years. How could DJ have possibly accumulated enough defensive value to warrant being ranked #4 all time? We're talking about a defensive prime as a PG that only lasted 6-7 years.

We are considering what he did in his entire career, if we got him as a SG, we would consider his whole career too. It doesn't matter how many seasons he played as a point guard.

How can a player get credit for a position he wasn't playing? It's like saying LeBron can also be on the best defensive SG list because he played 1 season as a SG.

This is why I said I have no idea what's going on anymore. Again, are we talking about peak, prime, career value, position defended, or something else in these threads?

[trex_8063]

Quoting everyone, as a couple people have made comments that indicate some confusion......

DJ played 14 seasons. 6 of them (all prime years) were spent as a SG. 7 out of his 8 years as a PG came from his age 29-35 years. How could DJ have possibly accumulated enough defensive value to warrant being ranked #4 all time? We're talking about a defensive prime as a PG that only lasted 6-7 years.

We are considering what he did in his entire career, if we got him as a SG, we would consider his whole career too. It doesn't matter how many seasons he played as a point guard.

How can a player get credit for a position he wasn't playing? It's like saying LeBron can also be on the best defensive SG list because he played 1 season as a SG.

This is why I said I have no idea what's going on anymore. Again, are we talking about peak, prime, career value, position defended, or something else in these threads?

We are talking about career value. Exactly how you want to weight or combine consideration for various factors such as peak defensive value, average per-minute defensive impact (over peak years/prime years/career years), and cumulative career value was left up to you. This was discussed in initial project discussion and candidate selection thread.

We have positionally designated the candidates before even starting the voting threads (I imagine we will be doing the same for each subsequent position). For those players whose careers are split between two [or more] positions----such as Dennis Johnson----we "officially" categorize them [by consensus] as one or the other beforehand, and their eligibility will typically be clearly labeled in the OP of each and every voting thread (as DJ's name has been listed in among the potential candidates).

Categorizing them as one or the other (but NOT both), and then considering their entire careers, seems necessary when considering candidates [like DJ] who essentially had their careers split fairly evenly between two positions. Otherwise he perhaps doesn't have enough career defensive value as a SG (from only his SG years), nor does he have enough to garner serious consideration as a PG (from his PG-only years). It would basically penalize players for not playing a SINGLE position consistently thru their careers, which is not exactly fair.

So if we have [by consensus] designated a guy as this position or that, consider his WHOLE career when we are doing the voting for that position (whether you agree that is his most accurate designation or not).

[LA Bird]

Spoiler:

.

Quoting you because, given the margins between candidates are razor-thin [imo], it was to no small degree the WOWY ppg allowed data you showed for Jerry West that persuaded me to shift my vote elsewhere.
However, I was inspired to look at WOWY ppg allowed data for a few others, just to see if there are consistent trends to be found with the other top defensive PG's (incomplete, but I'll share what I've got). The results are somewhat all over the map, from what I've looked at so far......

Dennis Johnson
‘77: 105.65 ppg with, 93.0 without (1 game) [+12.65]
‘78: 103.06 ppg with, 90.0 without (1 game) [+13.06]
‘79: 103.73 ppg with, 109.5 without (2 games) [-5.77]
‘80: 103.80 ppg with, 107.0 without (1 game) [-3.20]
‘81: 104.38 ppg with, 107.0 without (1 game) [-2.62]
‘82: 102.76 ppg with, 100.5 without (2 games) [+2.26]
‘83: 102.12 ppg with, 99.6 without (5 games) [+2.52]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): +2.70
AVG (weighted for # of games missed): +1.96


Mookie Blaylock
‘92: 106.79 ppg with, 109.1 without (10 games) [-2.31]
‘93: 108.33 ppg with, 109.5 without (2 games) [-1.17]
‘94: 96.16 ppg with, 97.0 without (1 game) [-0.84]
‘95: 95.35 ppg with, 94.0 without (2 games--one was OT game, too) [+1.35]
‘96: 96.89 ppg with, 111.0 without (1 game) [-14.11]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): -3.42
AVG (weighted for games missed): -2.36


Gary Payton
‘96: 96.74 ppg with, 97.0 without (1 game) [-0.26]
‘01: 97.28 ppg with, 97.0 without (3 games) [+0.28]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): +0.01
AVG (weighted for games missed): +0.15


Maurice Cheeks
‘82: 105.35 ppg with, 108.67 without (3 games) [-3.32]
‘83: 104.06 ppg with, 113.67 without (3 games) [-9.61]
‘84: 105.01 ppg with, 111.71 without (7 games) [-6.70]
‘85: 108.97 ppg with, 106.25 without (4 games) [+2.72]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): -4.23
AVG (weighted for games missed): -4.40


Cheeks certainly looks impressive (generally) from what I've looked at so far; and Blaylock to a lesser degree. But it seems to bounce around a lot from player to player (and from year to year within a player's sample).
Thus, I'm starting to question the reliability of this particular means, and I might be throwing my support in for Jerry West again very soon.

West missed plenty of games during his prime so we have a fair sample size of comparison. For much of the same reason single game on-offs for a player who played 47 minutes is useless, WOWY is not particularly helpful if a player only missed 1 or 2 games in a season. From 1962~73, West missed 151 games total. The sample size for the guards you mentioned:

DJ missed 13 games over 7 seasons
Mookie missed 16 games over 5 seasons
Payton missed 4 games over 2 seasons
Cheeks missed 17 games over 4 seasons

Using raw WOWY for guys who rarely missed games during their prime is misleading. Including Payton's 4 (!) missed games in there as if it says anything about his defensive impact is just disingenuous.

Granted raw WOWY is not a very accurate stat, it's pretty much the only individual defensive stat we have for prime West. If there was a more granular stat like defensive on-off or DRAPM for him, I wouldn't be using WOWY. Since the team defensive stats for the Lakers were poor before Wilt, a case for West as a top 5 defensive guard would need to show he was a impact defender who elevated his team's defense immensely in spite of poor defensive support. This is not what we see in the WOWY results.

[SHAQ32]

Riding with my guy Mookie Blaylock, lol

Again, I look at him as having the best combination of stats, credentials, competition at the position, eye test and career and peak defensive value.

[iggymcfrack]

I vote for Stockton. Best DRAPM plus steals king by a mile.

[Lost92Bricks]

I vote for 9x All-Defense and 6x steals leader, CP3.

[uberhikari]

Quoting everyone, as a couple people have made comments that indicate some confusion......

We are considering what he did in his entire career, if we got him as a SG, we would consider his whole career too. It doesn't matter how many seasons he played as a point guard.

How can a player get credit for a position he wasn't playing? It's like saying LeBron can also be on the best defensive SG list because he played 1 season as a SG.

This is why I said I have no idea what's going on anymore. Again, are we talking about peak, prime, career value, position defended, or something else in these threads?

We are talking about career value. Exactly how you want to weight or combine consideration for various factors such as peak defensive value, average per-minute defensive impact (over peak years/prime years/career years), and cumulative career value was left up to you. This was discussed in initial project discussion and candidate selection thread.

We have positionally designated the candidates before even starting the voting threads (I imagine we will be doing the same for each subsequent position). For those players whose careers are split between two [or more] positions----such as Dennis Johnson----we "officially" categorize them [by consensus] as one or the other beforehand, and their eligibility will typically be clearly labeled in the OP of each and every voting thread (as DJ's name has been listed in among the potential candidates).

Categorizing them as one or the other (but NOT both), and then considering their entire careers, seems necessary when considering candidates [like DJ] who essentially had their careers split fairly evenly between two positions. Otherwise he perhaps doesn't have enough career defensive value as a SG (from only his SG years), nor does he have enough to garner serious consideration as a PG (from his PG-only years). It would basically penalize players for not playing a SINGLE position consistently thru their careers, which is not exactly fair.

So if we have [by consensus] designated a guy as this position or that, consider his WHOLE career when we are doing the voting for that position (whether you agree that is his most accurate designation or not).

1. Thanks for the clarification. However, when I say I don't know what's going on anymore, it was in reference to the fact that I don't understand other people's reasoning as well as.

2. You can't force me to consider a player's whole career, when I think doing so is illogical in certain circumstances. I like having intellectual autonomy; that's kind of the point of intellectual endeavors like this. If you want to restrict my voting in these threads because of this, I think that's fair. But I won't be forced to do something I think is illogical

[pandrade83]

[spoiler]

.

Granted raw WOWY is not a very accurate stat, it's pretty much the only individual defensive stat we have for prime West. If there was a more granular stat like defensive on-off or DRAPM for him, I wouldn't be using WOWY. Since the team defensive stats for the Lakers were poor before Wilt, a case for West as a top 5 defensive guard would need to show he was a impact defender who elevated his team's defense immensely in spite of poor defensive support. This is not what we see in the WOWY results.

Well, there's the '66 example I've brought up a couple times where the Lakers definitely appeared to have outkicked their coverage (5/9) - at least as it relates to their frontcourt - note that this was also a particularly weak year for Baylor with just 2.6 WS & a PER of 16.9 - I believe he suffered through knee injuries. They also finish 4/9 in '62 with Baylor missing 32 games of defense.

Then there's the '70 Lakers which finished 4th defensively despite just 12 games of Wilt, 35 YO Baylor missing 1/3 of the season & Happy Hairston missing 1/3 of the season.

I'd say that's fairly impressive when your rim protector is out for basically the whole year and your next 2 leading rebounders miss substantial time.

And then too - if we look at their records with/without in the years West misses at least 10 games - where the sample is a bit larger - unless you believe the entire or nearly all of the impact West provides is offensive, it's substantial too:

'63 - 42-13 with, 12-15 without (63 win with, 36 win without)
'67 - 32-34 with, 4-11 without (40 win with, 22 win without)
'68 - 33-18 with, 19-12 without (53 win with, 50 win without)
'69 - 43-18 with, 12-9 without (58 win with, 47 win without)
'71 - 44-25 with, 4-9 without (52 win with, 25 without)

Raw is a 17 win change/yr, weighted is 16. I just have a hard time getting behind the idea that all of West's impact is offense when we have enough ancillary pieces (impressive box score in '74, the All-D Teams, evidence of average defense with below average front court) that suggest otherwise.

[Gibson22]

Quoting everyone, as a couple people have made comments that indicate some confusion......

How can a player get credit for a position he wasn't playing? It's like saying LeBron can also be on the best defensive SG list because he played 1 season as a SG.

This is why I said I have no idea what's going on anymore. Again, are we talking about peak, prime, career value, position defended, or something else in these threads?

We are talking about career value. Exactly how you want to weight or combine consideration for various factors such as peak defensive value, average per-minute defensive impact (over peak years/prime years/career years), and cumulative career value was left up to you. This was discussed in initial project discussion and candidate selection thread.

We have positionally designated the candidates before even starting the voting threads (I imagine we will be doing the same for each subsequent position). For those players whose careers are split between two [or more] positions----such as Dennis Johnson----we "officially" categorize them [by consensus] as one or the other beforehand, and their eligibility will typically be clearly labeled in the OP of each and every voting thread (as DJ's name has been listed in among the potential candidates).

Categorizing them as one or the other (but NOT both), and then considering their entire careers, seems necessary when considering candidates [like DJ] who essentially had their careers split fairly evenly between two positions. Otherwise he perhaps doesn't have enough career defensive value as a SG (from only his SG years), nor does he have enough to garner serious consideration as a PG (from his PG-only years). It would basically penalize players for not playing a SINGLE position consistently thru their careers, which is not exactly fair.

So if we have [by consensus] designated a guy as this position or that, consider his WHOLE career when we are doing the voting for that position (whether you agree that is his most accurate designation or not).

1. Thanks for the clarification. However, when I say I don't know what's going on anymore, it was in reference to the fact that I don't understand other people's reasoning as well as.

2. You can't force me to consider a player's whole career, when I think doing so is illogical in certain circumstances. I like having intellectual autonomy; that's kind of the point of intellectual endeavors like this. If you want to restrict my voting in these threads because of this, I think that's fair. But I won't be forced to do something I think is illogical

When we will get to Tim Duncan (probably a candidate for the #1 spot as a PF) will his defensive value as a PF be limited by the fact that he didn't play his whole career as a PF? Did Lebron really play his entire career as a SF? He entered the league as a SG, and he played a lot of minutes as a PF, especially in his miami years. I absolutely think that in the next 4 years as a Laker he will play a lot of PF, on defense too).
So? The point of the thread is, and the title could be: Who are the ten players considered point guards who are the best in the defensive end? It isn't, who are the ten best players at defending point guards?

So, you could say that you don't like DJ listed (here) as a PG, but, as trex said, we tried to categorize the ones who were in doubt before starting the rankings. And at the end of the day, I don't think anyone could have a strong evidence to argue that he should definitely be considered a point guard or a SG. I would say he is a PG. But there isn't a defintive answer.

I don't know what would you do for the fact that he played about half of his career as a pg and another half as a SG. I mean.. let's pretend that he was super elite both in his years as a pg and in his years as a SG, so good to deserve a spot in both rankings (obviously it's just an exemple, but 7 years of èlite defense are well enough to deserve a spot), what should we do? Give him a spot both as a PG and as a SG? I mean we could even do it, but I find it very odd.

Btw, I don't think this is my project, I tried to give "guidelines" the most similar to the standard as possible. I think it's the norm to consider the entire career of a player and not just his peak or his prime.
When people rank the 10 best player in each position in general, does anybody give less value to a player for the seasons he didn't play in his listed position? Garnett, duncan, bird, even lebron, jerry west, hakeem etc. I don't see why should it be different for a defense only ranking. At the end of the day, positions work like this, it's just an agreement to categorize players. I don't even think there's much difference in guarding a point guard or a sg, especially in DJ's times.
If we don't subtract value to the players for the time they didn't play in their listed ranking when we do the normal ranking by positions, I don't think it makes sense to do so for a defense only ranking

EDIT: most importantly, yes, I do think that everybody should vote by his own criteria, in a way

[Gibson22]

Chris Paul 5 (trex, knickfan, drpositivity, uberhikari, lost92bricks)
Jerry West 3 (samurai, penbeast, pandrade)
John Stockton 3 (cecil, luigi, iggymcfrack)
Nate Mcmillan 1 (lebron3-14-3)
Mookie Blaylock 1 (Shaq32)

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

.

Quoting you because, given the margins between candidates are razor-thin [imo], it was to no small degree the WOWY ppg allowed data you showed for Jerry West that persuaded me to shift my vote elsewhere.
However, I was inspired to look at WOWY ppg allowed data for a few others, just to see if there are consistent trends to be found with the other top defensive PG's (incomplete, but I'll share what I've got). The results are somewhat all over the map, from what I've looked at so far......

Dennis Johnson
‘77: 105.65 ppg with, 93.0 without (1 game) [+12.65]
‘78: 103.06 ppg with, 90.0 without (1 game) [+13.06]
‘79: 103.73 ppg with, 109.5 without (2 games) [-5.77]
‘80: 103.80 ppg with, 107.0 without (1 game) [-3.20]
‘81: 104.38 ppg with, 107.0 without (1 game) [-2.62]
‘82: 102.76 ppg with, 100.5 without (2 games) [+2.26]
‘83: 102.12 ppg with, 99.6 without (5 games) [+2.52]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): +2.70
AVG (weighted for # of games missed): +1.96


Mookie Blaylock
‘92: 106.79 ppg with, 109.1 without (10 games) [-2.31]
‘93: 108.33 ppg with, 109.5 without (2 games) [-1.17]
‘94: 96.16 ppg with, 97.0 without (1 game) [-0.84]
‘95: 95.35 ppg with, 94.0 without (2 games--one was OT game, too) [+1.35]
‘96: 96.89 ppg with, 111.0 without (1 game) [-14.11]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): -3.42
AVG (weighted for games missed): -2.36


Gary Payton
‘96: 96.74 ppg with, 97.0 without (1 game) [-0.26]
‘01: 97.28 ppg with, 97.0 without (3 games) [+0.28]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): +0.01
AVG (weighted for games missed): +0.15


Maurice Cheeks
‘82: 105.35 ppg with, 108.67 without (3 games) [-3.32]
‘83: 104.06 ppg with, 113.67 without (3 games) [-9.61]
‘84: 105.01 ppg with, 111.71 without (7 games) [-6.70]
‘85: 108.97 ppg with, 106.25 without (4 games) [+2.72]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): -4.23
AVG (weighted for games missed): -4.40


Cheeks certainly looks impressive (generally) from what I've looked at so far; and Blaylock to a lesser degree. But it seems to bounce around a lot from player to player (and from year to year within a player's sample).
Thus, I'm starting to question the reliability of this particular means, and I might be throwing my support in for Jerry West again very soon.

I have doubts about the validity of defensive stats for individual players. WOWY looks better than Dean Oliver's defensive rating because if I understand correctly WOWY is using injuries to try to replace the missing on court off court data. I think there is an effect where a team plays well for 1-3 games after the star gets injured just because the other players rise to the challenge.

Defensive rating seems to just take the team stats and then decides that players with rebounds, blocks and steals are better defenders.

This link claims that steals may be worth 9 points. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-hidden-value-of-the-nba-steal/
I doubt steals are worth 9 points.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I will vote for Cheeks.

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

.

Quoting you because, given the margins between candidates are razor-thin [imo], it was to no small degree the WOWY ppg allowed data you showed for Jerry West that persuaded me to shift my vote elsewhere.
However, I was inspired to look at WOWY ppg allowed data for a few others, just to see if there are consistent trends to be found with the other top defensive PG's (incomplete, but I'll share what I've got). The results are somewhat all over the map, from what I've looked at so far......

Dennis Johnson
‘77: 105.65 ppg with, 93.0 without (1 game) [+12.65]
‘78: 103.06 ppg with, 90.0 without (1 game) [+13.06]
‘79: 103.73 ppg with, 109.5 without (2 games) [-5.77]
‘80: 103.80 ppg with, 107.0 without (1 game) [-3.20]
‘81: 104.38 ppg with, 107.0 without (1 game) [-2.62]
‘82: 102.76 ppg with, 100.5 without (2 games) [+2.26]
‘83: 102.12 ppg with, 99.6 without (5 games) [+2.52]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): +2.70
AVG (weighted for # of games missed): +1.96


Mookie Blaylock
‘92: 106.79 ppg with, 109.1 without (10 games) [-2.31]
‘93: 108.33 ppg with, 109.5 without (2 games) [-1.17]
‘94: 96.16 ppg with, 97.0 without (1 game) [-0.84]
‘95: 95.35 ppg with, 94.0 without (2 games--one was OT game, too) [+1.35]
‘96: 96.89 ppg with, 111.0 without (1 game) [-14.11]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): -3.42
AVG (weighted for games missed): -2.36


Gary Payton
‘96: 96.74 ppg with, 97.0 without (1 game) [-0.26]
‘01: 97.28 ppg with, 97.0 without (3 games) [+0.28]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): +0.01
AVG (weighted for games missed): +0.15


Maurice Cheeks
‘82: 105.35 ppg with, 108.67 without (3 games) [-3.32]
‘83: 104.06 ppg with, 113.67 without (3 games) [-9.61]
‘84: 105.01 ppg with, 111.71 without (7 games) [-6.70]
‘85: 108.97 ppg with, 106.25 without (4 games) [+2.72]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): -4.23
AVG (weighted for games missed): -4.40


Cheeks certainly looks impressive (generally) from what I've looked at so far; and Blaylock to a lesser degree. But it seems to bounce around a lot from player to player (and from year to year within a player's sample).
Thus, I'm starting to question the reliability of this particular means, and I might be throwing my support in for Jerry West again very soon.

West missed plenty of games during his prime so we have a fair sample size of comparison. For much of the same reason single game on-offs for a player who played 47 minutes is useless, WOWY is not particularly helpful if a player only missed 1 or 2 games in a season. From 1962~73, West missed 151 games total. The sample size for the guards you mentioned:

DJ missed 13 games over 7 seasons
Mookie missed 16 games over 5 seasons
Payton missed 4 games over 2 seasons
Cheeks missed 17 games over 4 seasons

Using raw WOWY for guys who rarely missed games during their prime is misleading. Including Payton's 4 (!) missed games in there as if it says anything about his defensive impact is just disingenuous.

Granted raw WOWY is not a very accurate stat, it's pretty much the only individual defensive stat we have for prime West. If there was a more granular stat like defensive on-off or DRAPM for him, I wouldn't be using WOWY. Since the team defensive stats for the Lakers were poor before Wilt, a case for West as a top 5 defensive guard would need to show he was a impact defender who elevated his team's defense immensely in spite of poor defensive support. This is not what we see in the WOWY results.

I wanted to comment further regarding factors (such as sample size) which can muddy the WOWY waters. You may be right that small sample size is the single-biggest factor, but it's far from the only one.
Even with West's [generally] larger sample size of missed games, the effect his presence appears to have on pts allowed per game is all over the map from year-to-year. Even scrutinizing ONLY those seasons where he missed >5 games (anywhere from 6 to 31), here are his year-by-year WOWY effect ppg allowed:
-0.52
+4.64
-6.55
-1.23
+1.90
-0.38
-2.63
-1.46
+2.84

There's no real consistency, it just bounces all over the place. Certainly we should expect it to be more telling than with players that have smaller samples, but that is not a guarantee, again because of other potential influencing factors (that I'd once alluded to previously). Possibilities:
*teammates who are active/inactive while West is inactive
**strength of teams [in particular: offenses] faced in both the with and without samples (discrepancies??)
***players who are active/inactive on the opposing teams in both samples
****Pace played when West is active vs inactive---->perhaps the Lakers strategically try to slow it down into more of a defensive grind when West is absent, figuring they can't win a shooting match without him. Or maybe they simply take a little longer getting the ball up and getting into their offense when they don't have West to bring it up for them.

I don't know the specifics; and the latter possibility in particular is impossible to investigate with the data that's currently publicly available.
I get the "any port in a storm" reasoning behind wanting to incorporate this type of WOWY information into the broad picture of these older players ('cause we don't have a great deal of better options, nothing like what we have for current players). I'm merely suggesting we probably don't want to weight it too heavily in our consideration.


For reference:
West's yearly average effect (not weighted for # of games missed) from '62-'73 was -0.10. Weighted for # of games missed, it still came out to exactly -0.10.

I've added one more player to the list of others I've evaluated by this means; it's the player who went #2 on this list (who you yourself voted for in that thread):

Walt Frazier
‘69: 105.01 ppg with, 107.5 without (2 games) [-2.49]
‘70: 105.36 ppg with, 113.8 without (5 games--one OT game) [-8.44]
‘71: 104.94 ppg with, 109.5 without (2 games---one OT game, though) [-4.56]
‘72: 104.90 ppg with, 101.4 without (5 games) [+3.50]
‘73: 98.1 ppg with, 100.25 without (4 games) [-2.15]
‘74: 98.45 ppg with, 102.0 without (2 games) [-3.55]
‘75: 102.26 ppg with, 90.25 without (4 games) [+12.01]
‘76: 104.49 ppg with, 102.35 without (23 games) [+2.14]

AVG (yearly, not weighted for # of games): -0.44
AVG (weighted for games missed): +0.91

I'm sure you see what I'm getting at here (despite smaller sample size).

[PigsOnTheWing]

Spoiler:

Quoting you because, given the margins between candidates are razor-thin [imo], it was to no small degree the WOWY ppg allowed data you showed for Jerry West that persuaded me to shift my vote elsewhere.
However, I was inspired to look at WOWY ppg allowed data for a few others, just to see if there are consistent trends to be found with the other top defensive PG's (incomplete, but I'll share what I've got). The results are somewhat all over the map, from what I've looked at so far......

Dennis Johnson
‘77: 105.65 ppg with, 93.0 without (1 game) [+12.65]
‘78: 103.06 ppg with, 90.0 without (1 game) [+13.06]
‘79: 103.73 ppg with, 109.5 without (2 games) [-5.77]
‘80: 103.80 ppg with, 107.0 without (1 game) [-3.20]
‘81: 104.38 ppg with, 107.0 without (1 game) [-2.62]
‘82: 102.76 ppg with, 100.5 without (2 games) [+2.26]
‘83: 102.12 ppg with, 99.6 without (5 games) [+2.52]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): +2.70
AVG (weighted for # of games missed): +1.96


Mookie Blaylock
‘92: 106.79 ppg with, 109.1 without (10 games) [-2.31]
‘93: 108.33 ppg with, 109.5 without (2 games) [-1.17]
‘94: 96.16 ppg with, 97.0 without (1 game) [-0.84]
‘95: 95.35 ppg with, 94.0 without (2 games--one was OT game, too) [+1.35]
‘96: 96.89 ppg with, 111.0 without (1 game) [-14.11]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): -3.42
AVG (weighted for games missed): -2.36


Gary Payton
‘96: 96.74 ppg with, 97.0 without (1 game) [-0.26]
‘01: 97.28 ppg with, 97.0 without (3 games) [+0.28]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): +0.01
AVG (weighted for games missed): +0.15


Maurice Cheeks
‘82: 105.35 ppg with, 108.67 without (3 games) [-3.32]
‘83: 104.06 ppg with, 113.67 without (3 games) [-9.61]
‘84: 105.01 ppg with, 111.71 without (7 games) [-6.70]
‘85: 108.97 ppg with, 106.25 without (4 games) [+2.72]

AVG (not weighted for # of games): -4.23
AVG (weighted for games missed): -4.40


Cheeks certainly looks impressive (generally) from what I've looked at so far; and Blaylock to a lesser degree. But it seems to bounce around a lot from player to player (and from year to year within a player's sample).
Thus, I'm starting to question the reliability of this particular means, and I might be throwing my support in for Jerry West again very soon.

West missed plenty of games during his prime so we have a fair sample size of comparison. For much of the same reason single game on-offs for a player who played 47 minutes is useless, WOWY is not particularly helpful if a player only missed 1 or 2 games in a season. From 1962~73, West missed 151 games total. The sample size for the guards you mentioned:

DJ missed 13 games over 7 seasons
Mookie missed 16 games over 5 seasons
Payton missed 4 games over 2 seasons
Cheeks missed 17 games over 4 seasons

Using raw WOWY for guys who rarely missed games during their prime is misleading. Including Payton's 4 (!) missed games in there as if it says anything about his defensive impact is just disingenuous.

Granted raw WOWY is not a very accurate stat, it's pretty much the only individual defensive stat we have for prime West. If there was a more granular stat like defensive on-off or DRAPM for him, I wouldn't be using WOWY. Since the team defensive stats for the Lakers were poor before Wilt, a case for West as a top 5 defensive guard would need to show he was a impact defender who elevated his team's defense immensely in spite of poor defensive support. This is not what we see in the WOWY results.

I wanted to comment further regarding factors (such as sample size) which can muddy the WOWY waters. You may be right that small sample size is the single-biggest factor, but it's far from the only one.
Even with West's [generally] larger sample size of missed games, the effect his presence appears to have on pts allowed per game is all over the map from year-to-year. Even scrutinizing ONLY those seasons where he missed >5 games (anywhere from 6 to 31), here are his year-by-year WOWY effect ppg allowed:
-0.52
+4.64
-6.55
-1.23
+1.90
-0.38
-2.63
-1.46
+2.84

There's no real consistency, it just bounces all over the place. Certainly we should expect it to be more telling than with players that have smaller samples, but that is not a guarantee, again because of other potential influencing factors (that I'd once alluded to previously). Possibilities:
*teammates who are active/inactive while West is inactive
**strength of teams [in particular: offenses] faced in both the with and without samples (discrepancies??)
***players who are active/inactive on the opposing teams in both samples
****Pace played when West is active vs inactive---->perhaps the Lakers strategically try to slow it down into more of a defensive grind when West is absent, figuring they can't win a shooting match without him. Or maybe they simply take a little longer getting the ball up and getting into their offense when they don't have West to bring it up for them.

I don't know the specifics; and the latter possibility in particular is impossible to investigate with the data that's currently publicly available.
I get the "any port in a storm" reasoning behind wanting to incorporate this type of WOWY information into the broad picture of these older players ('cause we don't have a great deal of better options, nothing like what we have for current players). I'm merely suggesting we probably don't want to weight it too heavily in our consideration.


For reference:
West's yearly average effect (not weighted for # of games missed) from '62-'73 was -0.10. Weighted for # of games missed, it still came out to exactly -0.10.

I've added one more player to the list of others I've evaluated by this means; it's the player who went #2 on this list (who you yourself voted for in that thread):

Walt Frazier
‘69: 105.01 ppg with, 107.5 without (2 games) [-2.49]
‘70: 105.36 ppg with, 113.8 without (5 games--one OT game) [-8.44]
‘71: 104.94 ppg with, 109.5 without (2 games---one OT game, though) [-4.56]
‘72: 104.90 ppg with, 101.4 without (5 games) [+3.50]
‘73: 98.1 ppg with, 100.25 without (4 games) [-2.15]
‘74: 98.45 ppg with, 102.0 without (2 games) [-3.55]
‘75: 102.26 ppg with, 90.25 without (4 games) [+12.01]
‘76: 104.49 ppg with, 102.35 without (23 games) [+2.14]

AVG (yearly, not weighted for # of games): -0.44
AVG (weighted for games missed): +0.91

I'm sure you see what I'm getting at here (despite smaller sample size).

Fwiw, I found and old thread regarding WOWY made by ElGee, in which he explained the methodology he was using at the time (I'm not sure it's still the same) and the most interesting thing is the formula to calculate standard deviation in different sample size. It is: sample_std = 7.777 + (-1.857 * ln(sample_size)).
This means that when we look at a 1 game sample of WOWY, the ppg differential of that game can be 7.777 points higher or lower than an 82 games sample would produce for that same team missing the same player. With only 10 games, this variation is reduced to only 3.5 points. Over 50 games, there's barely any difference from the entire season.
Playing with Frazier's numbers, I'll change the numbers you found by one time adding and one time subtracting the std of the sample size.
Season.......Low.........High
'69............-8.97.......4.00
'70............-13.22.....-3.65
'71............-11.05......1.93
'72............-1.29.......8.29
'73............-7.35.......3.05
'74............-10.04......2.94
'75.............6.81.......17.21
'76.............0.19.......4.09
AVERAGE.....-5.62......4.73
WEIGHT. AVG.-2.78.....3.62

So basically there is a discrepancy of 6.40 in his score just based on the variance of the sample sizes, without taking into account all the things you cited, such as opponents, pace, missing teammates...
All this to say that I'm fairly sure the only player this type of analysis has some value for is West because he's the only one who missed enough of games.