RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #51 (Draymond Green)

[penbeast0]

Vote: Jimmy Butler: Two way player with strong playoff performances and leadership. Has had some run-ins with other players but they seem to be about the other players not putting in the work or defense.

Alt: Joel Embiid Best of the bigs on both ends and in a tougher era.


Nominate: Bobby Jones. More than a decade of straight 1st team All-Defense votes combined with high efficiency, though not high volume scoring, and good playmaking. Not a great rebounder for his position but could play 2-5 at either end. Probably the greatest glue guy in NBA history and in his time where he was the best player on his team (75 and 76 for example), his team was the best in the league both years though they came up short in the playoffs. The most 1st team All-Defense awards, best player on two Nugget teams that had the best record in the NBA (though both came up short in the playoffs), great efficiency without being just an inside scorer, excellent passer, decent offensive rebounder, defensively good at blocking out rather than getting the board, good shot blocker for a forward, good steals, could play up to the 5 or down to the 2, limited minutes because of a physical condition but probably the greatest glue guy in the history of the NBA.

Basically a more consistent version of Draymond Green defensively with efficient offense and a great attitude but in a weaker era.

Alt: Pau Gasol: Even without international play, taking the Lakers to those titles with Kobe is impressive and a strong #2 which I prefer to a bad #1.

[WintaSoldier1]

Choosing between GP and Embidd is difficult, leaning towards Embidd due to the gap in ability between GP and Embidd but I am likely to vote GP in and take Embidd as my alternative will be back later to cast the vote

[trex_8063]

Got to be brief ... turnovers, I don't know the best aggregate for turnovers with different levels of different types of creation. I don't know what your figures are for (career RS?) or how it compares with other guards on the board. His raw turnovers were always on the high side.

Only going to reply to this one piece, and leave the rest be.

For clarity, I don't find the TOV% on bbref to be of much value, unless comparing players of same/similar position AND role AND era......then it's probably fine. And it has some value comparing TEAM-wide turnover economy, or if looking at general [league-wide] turnover rates of different seasons, too. That's about it, imo.

Otherwise it suggests or tells us that Steve Nash is turnover prone, that John Stockton is very turnover prone, and that Draymond Green is almost astronomically awful taking care of the ball.

This is because it ONLY considers turnovers and true shooting attempts, nothing else.

The formula for my Modified TOV% [mTOV%] is:

TO / (TSA + TO + [2.33 * AST] + [0.04 * REB])


It's an attempt to account for other functions and means of production wherein a turnover may occur.

The specific figure I showed for Isiah Thomas (and Vinnie Johnson) were not career rs figures. We were discussing '84, so naturally they were his figures specifically in '84.
That team had the #1 team TOV% in the league that year.
Isiah Thomas had the lowest [best] mTOV% on that team (with Vinnie Johnson being the only one close).
He did that while essentially leading the team in scoring and assists (the latter by a WIDE margin), and being responsible for nearly all the ball-handling responsibilities.

That's what I was saying.

fwiw, they would be the 2nd-rated turnover economy in '85, with Isiah being responsible for even MORE offensive production, with an even BETTER mTOV%.

[WintaSoldier1]

Vote: EMBIDD
Alternate: GP!

Nomination: George Gervin
2nd Nom: Arizin!

Have a reallly bad headache right now, sorry if my post seems very low-effort. I should’ve done this at a more favorable time where I could have aided this discussion and selection better.

I ended up going with Embidd over GP because even tho I favor GP it just felt abnormally wrong. I want George Gervin due to more confidence and faith in his ability, [ More tape available];

[AEnigma]

I am very confused by the thurmond over green votes. Green was an arguable era-best defender with a bit of offense to boot as well as a bunch of team-success and an emperical consensus painting him as one of the league's top players at his prime in a much stronger league.

Thurmond has maybe one of those things.

This is you not knowing much about Thurmond.

[HeartBreakKid]

My vote is for Joel Embiid - I just saw Samurai nominate him and I'm trying to think "why not"? Hasn't had a great post season yet that I can recall, but seems in rank with the guys here, if not better because he seems a step above most of them in the RS. I might take him over Howard, I do feel he is the "better player" but I could be overlooking the rather big defensive gap in Howard's favor.

My alternate vote is for Nate Thurmond - I'm a big fan of his defensive dominance and definitely feel like if the deck was reshuffled he could have been behind some major defensive dynasties. I think versus someone like Payton, the gulf in being an all time shot blocker dwarfs Payton's ability as a PG. Also, Payton is kind of seen as the ultimate lock up guy but Nate was probably better at guarding his guys 1 on 1 though he guards a less valuable position. Payton's volume scoring and passing are good but not at the threshold where I would start tipping it in his favor.




Green - Hm..last time I looked I remember thinking Nate was a better defender but it could be stereotyping Green as "just a power forward". Either way, compared to Embiid, it feels like I am stretching things arguing Green > Embiid or buying into winner narratives.


Jimmy Butler - Not really considering him. His lows are just as bad as his highs are good. But I'm overdue for an evaluation of him.



My nomination is for Bill Walton

My alternate nomination is for Willis Reed - Arguably just as good as Frazier albeit his career feels even shorter.

I am very confused by the thurmond over green votes. Green was an arguable era-best defender with a bit of offense to boot as well as a bunch of team-success and an emperical consensus painting him as one of the league's top players at his prime in a much stronger league.

Thurmond has maybe one of those things.

Payton votes are even wierder. He's nowhere near the likes of Lebron, Pippen or Kawhi defensively, never mind Draymond and he wasn't an elite offensive player on a team that had one year of relevance despite playing with an abudance of help.

Maybe thurmond has an era-specific case, but I don't understand the Payton stuff. 1 on 1 defense is not that valuable.

My opinion is a bit out dated. I'm just trying to get my votes in before time runs out. I'm usually 1 thread behind in terms of my current opinion which is why I switch my votes and nominees quite often.

[HeartBreakKid]

While Green is arguably the best defender of his era he didn't compete against someone as outlandish I think as Wilt Chamberlain who overlaps with Thurmond. I believe most people would put Wilt over Gobert, so I'm not sure if Nate just being 2nd for his era is much of a sleight.

We do see that the Warriors have a great defense for pretty much all of Thurmond's career and he has high rebounds and BPG (he's already past his physical prime when they record BPG and he still gets 3 BPG per game). It would seem likely to me that he is up there with a lot of the pantheon defensive centers (or maybe the 2nd tier to be safe, but at center that is still a big deal).

[OhayoKD]

While Green is arguably the best defender of his era he didn't compete against someone as outlandish I think as Wilt Chamberlain who overlaps with Thurmond. I believe most people would put Wilt over Gobert, so I'm not sure if Nate just being 2nd for his era is much of a sleight.

We do see that the Warriors have a great defense for pretty much all of Thurmond's career and he has high rebounds and BPG (he's already past his physical prime when they record BPG and he still gets 3 BPG per game). It would seem likely to me that he is up there with a lot of the pantheon defensive centers (or maybe the 2nd tier to be safe, but at center that is still a big deal).

I do not think Giannis, Davis, Embid, JJJ, and Gobert are necessarily a weaker set of defensive contemporaries(Gobert in paticular is a progression of thurmond's archetype). Would not put Wilt ahead of Giannis(or Davis whenever he's healthy) defensively either.

Thurmond is a better rim protector but Draymond still grades as an elite big per modern-tracking data in that department while also running his team defensively, challenging perimiter players to an unprecedented degree, and offering much better help defense. Not to mention being one of the best raw passers in the league and also being able to function as a primary ball-handler.

And ultimately, if we are going to do any sort of cross-league comparison, Draymond is playing in a much stronger league against a wider array of offensive players and offensive stars.

From what I understand even in a relative sense thurmond does not grade out as more impactful than Draymond and naturally his signals have more uncertainty than Draymond's do. Thurmond also loses in the longetivity department if you put significant stock in the playoffs not to mention Draymond being the defensive anchor for a mostly defensive(when it matters at least) dynasty that sported the best 5-year postseason defense of the 2010's.

I don't really see it.

[OhayoKD]

Vote

1. Draymond Green


-> Superstar impact by every approach throughout prime
-> Playoff-Riser
-> Centerpiece of an arguably era-best defense
-> Cornerstone of an all-time dynasty
-> Best-in-league calibre defender
-> One of the few two-way floor-generals in history

Alternate

2. Embiid

Seems early but much better him than payton tbh. Kind of telling people making payton votes aren't really bothering to compare him to other candidates. Butler is probably the better pick but he doesn't seem to have support here.

[OhayoKD]

Got to be brief ... turnovers, I don't know the best aggregate for turnovers with different levels of different types of creation. I don't know what your figures are for (career RS?) or how it compares with other guards on the board. His raw turnovers were always on the high side.

Only going to reply to this one piece, and leave the rest be.

For clarity, I don't find the TOV% on bbref to be of much value, unless comparing players of same/similar position AND role AND era......then it's probably fine. And it has some value comparing TEAM-wide turnover economy, or if looking at general [league-wide] turnover rates of different seasons, too. That's about it, imo.

Otherwise it suggests or tells us that Steve Nash is turnover prone, that John Stockton is very turnover prone, and that Draymond Green is almost astronomically awful taking care of the ball.

This is because it ONLY considers turnovers and true shooting attempts, nothing else.

The formula for my Modified TOV% [mTOV%] is:

TO / (TSA + TO + [2.33 * AST] + [0.04 * REB])


It's an attempt to account for other functions and means of production wherein a turnover may occur.

The specific figure I showed for Isiah Thomas (and Vinnie Johnson) were not career rs figures. We were discussing '84, so naturally they were his figures specifically in '84.
That team had the #1 team TOV% in the league that year.
Isiah Thomas had the lowest [best] mTOV% on that team (with Vinnie Johnson being the only one close).
He did that while essentially leading the team in scoring and assists (the latter by a WIDE margin), and being responsible for nearly all the ball-handling responsibilities.

That's what I was saying.

fwiw, they would be the 2nd-rated turnover economy in '85, with Isiah being responsible for even MORE offensive production, with an even BETTER mTOV%.

Feel liek this is also worth mentioning: while it doesn't show up in most basketball box-scores the ability to effeciently handle the ball and progress it past defenders is absolutely part of production and any assessment of turnover econonomy should be factoring how much a player is handling the ball.

Draymond handled the ball as much as Steph in the Warriors heyday. Steve Nash made use of the ball pre-pass more than maybe anyone else ever. Kevin Durant having xast:tov% is very different than Steph having one which is very different than Lebron having one and so on.

[HeartBreakKid]

While Green is arguably the best defender of his era he didn't compete against someone as outlandish I think as Wilt Chamberlain who overlaps with Thurmond. I believe most people would put Wilt over Gobert, so I'm not sure if Nate just being 2nd for his era is much of a sleight.

We do see that the Warriors have a great defense for pretty much all of Thurmond's career and he has high rebounds and BPG (he's already past his physical prime when they record BPG and he still gets 3 BPG per game). It would seem likely to me that he is up there with a lot of the pantheon defensive centers (or maybe the 2nd tier to be safe, but at center that is still a big deal).

I do not think Giannis, Davis, Embid, JJJ, and Gobert are necessarily a weaker set of defensive contemporaries(Gobert in paticular is a progression of thurmond's archetype). Would not put Wilt ahead of Giannis(or Davis whenever he's healthy) defensively either.

Thurmond is a better rim protector but Draymond still grades as an elite big per modern-tracking data in that department while also running his team defensively, challenging perimiter players to an unprecedented degree, and offering much better help defense. Not to mention being one of the best raw passers in the league and also being able to function as a primary ball-handler.

And ultimately, if we are going to do any sort of cross-league comparison, Draymond is playing in a much stronger league against a wider array of offensive players and offensive stars.

From what I understand even in a relative sense thurmond does not grade out as more impactful than Draymond and naturally his signals have more uncertainty than Draymond's do. Thurmond also loses in the longetivity department if you put significant stock in the playoffs not to mention Draymond being the defensive anchor for a mostly defensive(when it matters at least) dynasty that sported the best 5-year postseason defense of the 2010's.

I don't really see it.

Klay Thompson was the 4th or 5th best defender on the Warriors, to say that they were more talented than Nate's versions of the Warriors is an understatement. So while the Warriors were a defensive dynasty with Green, I am not really going to allocate all their success to him. I've very much seen the Warriors not be a defensive dynasty with Green on his team nearly as much.

Nate Thurmond was a top tier rebounder if I can recall, certainly a better one for Green, and in his era being able to rebound mattered a lot. We also have a lot of comparisons going from now to when I first saw them 10-15 years ago that volume scoring bigs do score less effectively in games with Nate Thurmond. It would seem likely that Nate Thurmond is essentially the Gary Payton of centers in that he is the best man to man defender has some weight to it.

So Nate does do more things better than just block shots than Green.


I don't know, maybe Wilt Chamberlain isn't that good at defense then - but at that point then we could just as easily argue Nate Thurmond was better than Wilt as well. Either way, I do not think JJJ and Joel Embiid are particularly close to Thurmond as defenders, and that's coming from someone who voted for Embiid over Nate. Anthony Davis barely even plays, so I forget he exist, but when he does, wasn't he considered better than Green?

[OhayoKD]

While Green is arguably the best defender of his era he didn't compete against someone as outlandish I think as Wilt Chamberlain who overlaps with Thurmond. I believe most people would put Wilt over Gobert, so I'm not sure if Nate just being 2nd for his era is much of a sleight.

We do see that the Warriors have a great defense for pretty much all of Thurmond's career and he has high rebounds and BPG (he's already past his physical prime when they record BPG and he still gets 3 BPG per game). It would seem likely to me that he is up there with a lot of the pantheon defensive centers (or maybe the 2nd tier to be safe, but at center that is still a big deal).

I do not think Giannis, Davis, Embid, JJJ, and Gobert are necessarily a weaker set of defensive contemporaries(Gobert in paticular is a progression of thurmond's archetype). Would not put Wilt ahead of Giannis(or Davis whenever he's healthy) defensively either.

Thurmond is a better rim protector but Draymond still grades as an elite big per modern-tracking data in that department while also running his team defensively, challenging perimiter players to an unprecedented degree, and offering much better help defense. Not to mention being one of the best raw passers in the league and also being able to function as a primary ball-handler.

And ultimately, if we are going to do any sort of cross-league comparison, Draymond is playing in a much stronger league against a wider array of offensive players and offensive stars.

From what I understand even in a relative sense thurmond does not grade out as more impactful than Draymond and naturally his signals have more uncertainty than Draymond's do. Thurmond also loses in the longetivity department if you put significant stock in the playoffs not to mention Draymond being the defensive anchor for a mostly defensive(when it matters at least) dynasty that sported the best 5-year postseason defense of the 2010's.

I don't really see it.

Klay Thompson was the 4th or 5th best defender on the Warriors, to say that they were more talented than Nate's versions of the Warriors is an understatement.

Nate Thurmond was a top tier rebounder if I can recall, certainly a better one for Green, and in his era being able to rebound mattered a lot. We also have a lot of comparisons going from now to when I first saw them 10-15 years ago that volume scoring bigs do score less effectively in games with Nate Thurmond. It would seem likely that Nate Thurmond is essentially the Gary Payton of centers in that he is the best man to man defender has some weight to it.

Yeah, the Warriors were more talented. Draymond was in turn alot more successful so we'd need to break things down further. Warriors had a general talent advantage and of course thurmond never had a team on par with the ones that had KD but I don't think those non-kd casts were neccesarily on a different level than the 73 and 74 Warriors. At least not relative to the competition. As is he got to enter the league making the finals as 20 mpg guy next to prime Wilt Chamberlain. When his minutes went up and he was left to his own as a leading-man, the Warriors were one of the worst teams(literally the worst one year) in a sample I'd say is a lot more fairer to harp on than Draymond's 2020. Then Rick Barry arrives and they're back in the final. There seems to be this idea Thurmond is proven as a floor-raiser in a way Draymond isn't but Draymond won as many series without a superstar teammate(okay not literally) with one real chance to prove himself and the warriors looked likely to win a second before Steph's return(game 5 had the Warriors blowout the trailblazers by 29 while Curry shot horribly and put up a 0 +/-).

Moreover Thurmond has a lot more negative evidence against him(while draymond has...the year he was put on a minutes restriction and the warriors were trying to get a high-value lottery pick to extend their dynasty).

Thurmond as the "gary payton" of centers is cool, but I do not think there's anything suggesting he's clearly ahead of all the other centers in that regard. Hakeem, Russell, and Gobert also nuke opposing big efficiency quite well. Thurmond has a case there but I wouldn't take it further than that. He is a better rebounder.

Otoh, Draymond has a case as the smartest defender/best defensive coordinator since Russell, the best big perimiter defender and the best help defender which I think all correlates better than just man defense and block/rebound accumulation.

As is Draymond has a good track record as a man defender too(and is more versatile in terms of who he can guard).

And ultimately setting aside skillset, is there solid evidence for thurmond being more valuable?

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Gary Payton
Vote 2 - Nate Thurmond
Nomination 1 - George Gervin
Nomination 2 - Willis Reed

Payton had a solid 9 year prime where he excelled on both ends of the floor. I don't think his average efficiency should bring him down that much as he ran some of the best offenses in the NBA during his prime, and he was an elite perimeter defender. His durability is also quite impressive: over his first 14 seasons, he only missed a total of 7 games, playing nearly 37 MPG (from '95-'03, he played 39.6 MPG).

Kinda feel like Gervin is slipping through the cracks at this point.

Even though his playoff success leaves something to be desired, he was still an impressive playoff performer, putting up the following from '75-'83 (65 games):

28.8 PPG, 7.2 RPG, 3 APG, 1.2 SPG, 1.1 BPG, 56% TS, 113 ORtg 

In '79, the spurs faced the defending champion bullets in the ECF, with a heartbreaking 2 pt game 7 loss. Gervin scored 42 pts in the game, including 24 in the 2nd half. The spurs and bullets ranked 1st and 2nd in SRS respectively that season.

In '82, the spurs made a mid season trade for talented scorer Mike Mitchell. He would only appear in 57 games for the spurs, and gervin still led the spurs to the 7th best SRS in the league. For context as owly mentioned, Ron brewer was pretty productive that season before being traded for Mitchell: https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1982.html. They would fall to the eventual NBA champion lakers (4th in SRS) in the WCF.

In '83, the spurs (6th in SRS) would again fall to the lakers (3rd in SRS) in the WCF. Gervin and Mitchell both had solid performances in the post season that year, but simply weren't enough for a deep lakers roster that featured magic, kareem, nixon, wilkes, mcadoo and cooper.

Had gervin and gilmore had more time together during each other's primes, i'm sure both would have helped each other to further playoff success.

[ShaqAttac]

i dont really know who to vote for but good args have been made for wb impact and he was maybe #1 on better teams than dwights and won an mvp. drexler teams also werent as good and the arg for him isnt that good. wb vs kobe is dumb but idt drexler is kobe so i guess ill go

VOTE

1. Draymond
his impact looks good and he wins a bunch. args for him bein able to carry teams are better than args against tbh

2. BUTLER

led 2 final teams and winta made a good arg for him. min also only made the playoffs when he was there and sixers werent as good when he left even after adding ppl like harden


imma nom

Walton
chip and mvp and swept kareem and played more minutes than embid. also crazy impact

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Induction Vote #1: Gary Payton

Induction Vote #2: Jimmy Butler

I really am not a fan of the recent ballots. I am very cautious about inducting active players, so a ballot with three of them on it is not fun for me.

Between Payton and Embiid, Payton just has a lot more absolute longevity and comparable longevity as an elite player, and he's manifestly more accomplished in the playoffs(three Finals appearances[one as 1A/1B depending on your POV], four CF appearances, a ring as a role player with decent impact numbers, 154 playoff games played vs Embiid's 53). I am a fan of Embiid and am rooting for him to change this as his career progresses, but for right now, he just hasn't done much in the playoffs.

If I have to pick an active player on the current ballot, I'll go with Jimmy for my #2, as he's taken two teams to the Finals.

Nomination Vote #1: Paul Arizin

Nomination Vote #2: George Gervin

As before, Arizin was a #1 on a title team, put up consistently good numbers, efficient scorer, good rebounder, resilient in the postseason, reasonable longevity especially for the era(ten seasons), plus narrative reasons.

I find himself in a position where my nomination vote could tilt things one way or the other. I've really been wanting to get Gervin on the ballot, but penbeast's earlier query - "what's the argument for Gervin over Dantley" - has gotten stuck in my head, because I don't have a good answer, and Arizin won where Gervin didn't, so even though I'm sort of at odds with myself, I'm going with Arizin.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

By my count it's Embiid 5, Payton 4 after secondary votes. AEnigma still hasn't specified his induction vote and I believe he's not too high on Embiid, and I don't really know what Doc will do with his second vote. And there are some other votes that haven't come in yet.

Could go either way here.

[Owly]

Got to be brief ... turnovers, I don't know the best aggregate for turnovers with different levels of different types of creation. I don't know what your figures are for (career RS?) or how it compares with other guards on the board. His raw turnovers were always on the high side.

Only going to reply to this one piece, and leave the rest be.

For clarity, I don't find the TOV% on bbref to be of much value, unless comparing players of same/similar position AND role AND era......then it's probably fine. And it has some value comparing TEAM-wide turnover economy, or if looking at general [league-wide] turnover rates of different seasons, too. That's about it, imo.

Otherwise it suggests or tells us that Steve Nash is turnover prone, that John Stockton is very turnover prone, and that Draymond Green is almost astronomically awful taking care of the ball.

This is because it ONLY considers turnovers and true shooting attempts, nothing else.

The formula for my Modified TOV% [mTOV%] is:

TO / (TSA + TO + [2.33 * AST] + [0.04 * REB])


It's an attempt to account for other functions and means of production wherein a turnover may occur.

The specific figure I showed for Isiah Thomas (and Vinnie Johnson) were not career rs figures. We were discussing '84, so naturally they were his figures specifically in '84.
That team had the #1 team TOV% in the league that year.
Isiah Thomas had the lowest [best] mTOV% on that team (with Vinnie Johnson being the only one close).
He did that while essentially leading the team in scoring and assists (the latter by a WIDE margin), and being responsible for nearly all the ball-handling responsibilities.

That's what I was saying.

fwiw, they would be the 2nd-rated turnover economy in '85, with Isiah being responsible for even MORE offensive production, with an even BETTER mTOV%.

Fair enough.

Given this isn't the full on debate ...

This seems broadly fair ...

I am aware of your use of the measure.

I am aware of the flaws in the Reference turnover measures and use for non-alike roles.

I don't have easy access your numbers for players or player seasons or any grip on norms (beside a handful of seasons from high assist/low turnover guys where I was experimenting with different measures (Lowe, Bogues, Paxson, Brandon etc). I have, therefore, little means to know, internalize and intrepret within context these figures.

I would say I think, eyeballing it that it seems, at first glance at least, to tilt favorable to players whose proportion of their production tends towards passing. In my head for a long time circa 2.5:1 was about an average-ish point guard a:t ratio. But A:T like shooting usage turnover percentages is only working with part of the picture. Some of their turnovers will have been generated off creating shots for themselves (unless they're Sidney Lowe or John Paxson) so A:T will be inflated. Given this I would think players should probably need less than 2.5 (or 2.33) assists per turnover to improve their mtov%. If I am correct I think this measure would inflate '84 Thomas a little (and heavily inflate the likes of Sidney Lowe, John Paxson).

Conversely, in a less informed way (and not really regarding IT), I would guess that grabbing an offensive rebound, probably quite often involves coming down in a tightish pack of opposing players and you might not have received it as comfortably as a pass. I suspect this measure would prefer players who didn't bother trying for such rebounds.

Regardless I was, as alluded to last time, probably indexing too much on Thomas's high career raw turnover numbers and, if I don't quite buy into your number fully, it's probably a fair bit better than what I was doing.

[AEnigma]

From what I understand even in a relative sense thurmond does not grade out as more impactful than Draymond and naturally his signals have more uncertainty than Draymond's do.

Demonstrably wrong.

I don't think those non-kd casts were neccesarily on a different level than the 73 and 74 Warriors. At least not relative to the competition.

There is no actual way that you believe the difference between the 1973/74 Warriors and the 2015/16/22 Warriors was Draymond being better than Thurmond. Again, this is demonstrably wrong.

As is he got to enter the league making the finals as 20 mpg guy next to prime Wilt Chamberlain.

No one is voting Thurmond for his rookie season, just like no one is voting Draymond for his.

When his minutes went up and he was left to his own as a leading-man, the Warriors were one of the worst teams(literally the worst one year) in a sample I'd say is a lot more fairer to harp on than Draymond's 2020.

I similarly doubt you have a sincere belief that a pre-prime sophomore leading an abysmal team is “fairer to harp on” than an in his prime “superstar” doing so.

Then Rick Barry arrives and they're back in the final.

From 1966-74, the Warriors were always significantly more hurt by Thurmond missing time than by Barry missing time. Again, do not see this as a remotely sincere believe, either with these specific players or with how you assess their respective archetypes.

There seems to be this idea Thurmond is proven as a floor-raiser in a way Draymond isn't but Draymond won as many series without a superstar teammate(okay not literally) with one real chance to prove himself and the warriors looked likely to win a second before Steph's return(game 5 had the Warriors blowout the trailblazers by 29 while Curry shot horribly and put up a 0 +/-).

Okay, the Warriors with Draymond as the team’s clear best player probably would have defeated two roughly neutral SRS teams.

The Warriors with Thurmond made the Finals and gave what to that point had been the league’s greatest team their toughest test, then without Barry took a 2-0 road lead over that “Jordan + Hakeem superteam” you always love to mention when discussing Russell, before losing his Klay equivalent teammate to injury and being unable to muster enough offence to complete the upset.

Moreover Thurmond has a lot more negative evidence against him(while draymond has...the year he was put on a minutes restriction and the warriors were trying to get a high-value lottery pick to extend their dynasty).

The positive impact evidence also dwarfs Draymond’s, so either you have forgotten it or you are ignoring and misrepresenting it.

Thurmond as the "gary payton" of centers is cool, but I do not think there's anything suggesting he's clearly ahead of all the other centers in that regard. Hakeem, Russell, and Gobert also nuke opposing big efficiency quite well. Thurmond has a case there but I wouldn't take it further than that.

Also wrong, it is very clear by the numbers — with only Hakeem having any possible argument via breadth of competition.

Otoh, Draymond has a case as the smartest defender/best defensive coordinator since Russell, the best big perimiter defender and the best help defender which I think all correlates better than just man defense and block/rebound accumulation.

Yet he has no impact signals equivalent to peak Thurmond.

And ultimately setting aside skillset, is there solid evidence for thurmond being more valuable?

Yes, very famously. And you have read it, but you have put it out of your mind and not bothered to even check it before going on this mostly baseless diatribe.

[penbeast0]

...
Yet he has no impact signals equivalent to peak Thurmond.

How do these impact signals rate Bobby Jones v. Draymond?

[AEnigma]

...
Yet he has no impact signals equivalent to peak Thurmond.

How do these impact signals rate Bobby Jones v. Draymond?

So I am mostly talking WOWY here. Jones does not have too substantial a sample, and what there is does not reflect notably well on him outside of that messy 1974 -> 1975 Nuggets improvement (I say messy because there were a lot of internal changes, although broadly it is a good signal for Jones). Team change does not help him, and the 76ers won most of their games when he missed… Statmuse is being stubborn with the usual net rating analysis, which means it is possible that ends up looking more favourable for Jones from 1982-84.

There is the angle that Jones was simply easier to replace with Erving on the roster than Draymond was as a clearer defensive anchor for his team, but personally that is not much of a positive argument, and with Jones playing more limited minutes, I would expect the team to survive his absences better anyway.

Jones has nice on/off numbers, but obviously hard to top Draymond there.