#2 Best Defensive Point Guard of all time - The ten best defenders in each position project

[mdonnelly1989]

So, we start from the top, the #2 Best defensive point guard of all time.

1. Jason Kidd

There are 19 candidates.

K.C.Jones (Boston, 1959/1967)
Jerry West (Lakers, 1961/74)
Wali Jones (Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Utah Stars, Detroit, 1965/76)
Walt Frazier (Knicks, Cavs, 1968/1980)
Norm Van Lier (Cincinnati Royals, Bulls, Bucks, 1970/1979)
Don Buse (Indiana Pacers, Phoenix Suns, Portland, Kansas City Kings, 1973/1976 ABA, 1977/1985 NBA)
Dennis Johnson (Seattle, Phoenix, Boston, 1977/1990)
Micheal Ray Richardson (Knicks, Warriors, Nets, 1979/1986)
Maurice Cheeks (Philadeplhia, Spurs, Knicks, Hawks, Nets, 1979/1993)
Derek Harper (Dallas, Knicks, Orlando, Lakers, 1984/1999)
John Stockton (Utah Jazz, 1985/2003)
Nate McMillan (Seattle, 1987/1998)
Mookie Blaylock (Nets, Hawks, Warriors, 1990/2002)
Gary Payton (Seattle, Milwaukee, Lakers, Boston, Miami, 1991/2007)
Eric Snow (Seattle, Philadelphia, Cavs, 1996/2008)
Chris Paul (Clippers, Rockets, 2006-2018+)
Jrue Holiday (Philadelphia, Pelicans, 2010-2018+)
Ricky Rubio (Minnesota, Utah Jazz, 2012-2018+)
Patrick Beverley (Rockets, Clippers, 2013-2018+)

Pick the second and explain why.
Somebody sticky this (maybe)

Please make a Poll

who would you vote?

#1. Walt Frazier
#2. Gary Payton
#3. Jason Kidd
#4. Nate McMillan
#5. Jerry West
#6. Chris Paul

[Gibson22]

Please make a Poll

who would you vote?

#1. Walt Frazier
#2. Gary Payton
#3. Jason Kidd
#4. Nate McMillan
#5. Jerry West
#6. Chris Paul

Ok, Jason already got the #1 place, anyway, we won't do a poll, I think it's better this way. I would like to have more voters, but still there's a decent number of votes

[kendogg]

I'm sorry, my fault. Anyway, I think that GP is a more than valid candidate, I wrote that because I found it really strange that you think it's a given that the 90s are the strongest era. It's pretty clear to me that they are literally the darkest age of the league from the 80s to the present

Like I said, of every single "what is the best era" journalistic article I have ever read has had 90's as #1. It had the most viewership, the most exciting players, the era with the most dominating showman of all time, who boosted NBA numbers into the stratosphere almost single handedly. As soon as MJ retired, viewership numbers dropped off. 1999 was the lowest point in the NBA since the 70's. The 00's were not horrible talent wise but a slight drop from 90's in terms of sheer amount of superstar talent. The 10's have some stars but it is too early to tell how many of their careers will play out. The 80's was the beginning of the revitalization after the 70's where the NBA almost collapsed entirely it was so unpopular. The 80's were not weak either and pretty comparable to the 00's I think but the 90's were just a bit tougher. And it's not just Jordan taking 3 titles. The parity in the league I think was actually super healthy at that time and the Bulls were actually tested more than once each run despite being arguably the best dynasty of the modern era. It was also the last era that the Eastern Conference wasn't the Leastern Conference.

Showmanship and media attention aren't really relevant to our discussion (except in negative terms if there was more showmanship because they played less defense on the stars). In terms of talent, it's pretty clear that the large increase in the talent pool from international players with real NBA ability and skills has created much more depth to the league than in the 90s. I would say that the current era is the deepest in talent (truly high end talent is another issue and depends where you put your cutoff for what is "high end"), then the 00s, then the 90s, but the 60s are probably stronger than the 80s overall for top talent with the smaller league concentrating the smaller talent pool on a lot less teams, and the 70s and 50s trail well behind due to expansion/more "playing for contracts"/cocaine in the 70s and incomplete integration in the 50s.

I'm looking strictly at star talent because that's all we are really discussing here. I think the average player today is better than the 60's, but that's due more to sports science and the evolution of the sport than anything else. But average is average for the era, they don't really move the needle in terms of parity or # of contenders. The showmanship is what brought not only fans in the seats but young stars of the next generation. When Magic and Bird were revitalizing the NBA, they were also training up the next generation (aka the 90's). Would Kobe and Vince and Tracy be the same players if not for MJ before him? Absolutely not. What did the international explosion give us? A bunch of big men practicing 3's instead of post ups and rebounds. **** that give me the 90's back. You need at least one inside guy or your floor spacing is actually worse.

The 60's had a lot of center talent, and a fair amount of forward talent (relative to the # of teams), but the guards are another story. After the few at the top the talent drops off. If you took the worst 5-10 starting guards of each decade, I'd bet the 60's finish last or 2nd last after the 70's, despite having way less teams. The 80's revitalized the league, though I do agree with you that the 80's don't necessarily have more superstars or than the 60's or any of the modern eras. In terms of counting the number of contenders and very solid playoff teams that can scare the contenders, I think the parity is about as good in the 80's than 00's or 10's. There was at least 3 absolute contenders and a lot of teams that were very close. There wasn't as many free win teams either. But I absolutely feel that the most competitive era is the 90's, despite the Bulls ultimately winning so many championships. The Bulls never had an easy road on any of their runs. Far more of their post first round series were 6 or 7 games than 4 or 5.

[LA Bird]

The exact number from 1962 to 1973 comes out at
Lakers with West (822 G): 116.9 ppg for, 111.9 ppg against
Lakers without West (151 G): 110.0 ppg for, 112.1 ppg against

fwiw, that's messy methodology. For one thing, there were fairly wild fluctuations in team and league-average pace between '62-'73. If you want to use WOWY to investigate for impact (defensive or otherwise), I think you need to look at individual year fluxes.

West rates out even worse in defensive WOWY on an individual season basis. From 62 to 73,
Season sum total change: -0.2 (which is what I had posted earlier)
Simple average of individual season changes: -0.1
Weighted average of individual season changes based on sample size: +0.1

Regardless of methodology, the Lakers' defense (in terms of opponent ppg) didn't change much with/without West's presence.
Combine this with the Lakers RS defense being mediocre and their PO defense being garbage pre Wilt and it's hard for me to see West as a top 3 defensive PG.

And for reference, West's WOWY for each individual season:

Code: Select all

Year   G (In)  For       Against   G (Out) For       Against
1962   75      118.91    116.36    5       112.80    115.80
1963   55      117.53    112.24    25      111.12    112.76
1964   72      110.85    109.14    8       99.13     104.50
1965   74      111.86    109.45    6       111.67    116.00
1966   79      119.68    116.39    1       102.00    114.00
1967   66      121.44    119.97    15      116.60    121.20
1968   51      125.16    116.29    31      114.65    114.39
1969   61      113.48    108.00    21      108.67    108.38
1970   74      114.64    111.50    8       105.50    114.13
1971   69      116.55    111.46    13      105.31    112.92
1972   77      121.70    108.65    5       109.80    109.40
1973   69      113.13    103.61    13      103.92    100.77
1974   31      109.32    108.03    24      107.88    108.88

[Gibson22]

john stockton 1
cp3 1/2 (heej)
gary payton 2
Nate Mcmillan 1
jerry west 5/4 (PistolPeteJR?)
walt frazier 7 (+ one or two guys that were inclined towards him but they definitely didn't vote)
Mookie Blaylock 1

Walt Frazier is the winner.

[Gibson22]

The next thread is up!

[penbeast0]

Like I said, of every single "what is the best era" journalistic article I have ever read has had 90's as #1. It had the most viewership, the most exciting players, the era with the most dominating showman of all time, who boosted NBA numbers into the stratosphere almost single handedly. As soon as MJ retired, viewership numbers dropped off. 1999 was the lowest point in the NBA since the 70's. The 00's were not horrible talent wise but a slight drop from 90's in terms of sheer amount of superstar talent. The 10's have some stars but it is too early to tell how many of their careers will play out. The 80's was the beginning of the revitalization after the 70's where the NBA almost collapsed entirely it was so unpopular. The 80's were not weak either and pretty comparable to the 00's I think but the 90's were just a bit tougher. And it's not just Jordan taking 3 titles. The parity in the league I think was actually super healthy at that time and the Bulls were actually tested more than once each run despite being arguably the best dynasty of the modern era. It was also the last era that the Eastern Conference wasn't the Leastern Conference.

Showmanship and media attention aren't really relevant to our discussion (except in negative terms if there was more showmanship because they played less defense on the stars). In terms of talent, it's pretty clear that the large increase in the talent pool from international players with real NBA ability and skills has created much more depth to the league than in the 90s. I would say that the current era is the deepest in talent (truly high end talent is another issue and depends where you put your cutoff for what is "high end"), then the 00s, then the 90s, but the 60s are probably stronger than the 80s overall for top talent with the smaller league concentrating the smaller talent pool on a lot less teams, and the 70s and 50s trail well behind due to expansion/more "playing for contracts"/cocaine in the 70s and incomplete integration in the 50s.

I'm looking strictly at star talent because that's all we are really discussing here. I think the average player today is better than the 60's, but that's due more to sports science and the evolution of the sport than anything else. But average is average for the era, they don't really move the needle in terms of parity or # of contenders. The showmanship is what brought not only fans in the seats but young stars of the next generation. When Magic and Bird were revitalizing the NBA, they were also training up the next generation (aka the 90's). Would Kobe and Vince and Tracy be the same players if not for MJ before him? Absolutely not. What did the international explosion give us? A bunch of big men practicing 3's instead of post ups and rebounds. **** that give me the 90's back. You need at least one inside guy or your floor spacing is actually worse.

The 60's had a lot of center talent, and a fair amount of forward talent (relative to the # of teams), but the guards are another story. After the few at the top the talent drops off. If you took the worst 5-10 starting guards of each decade, I'd bet the 60's finish last or 2nd last after the 70's, despite having way less teams. The 80's revitalized the league, though I do agree with you that the 80's don't necessarily have more superstars or than the 60's or any of the modern eras. In terms of counting the number of contenders and very solid playoff teams that can scare the contenders, I think the parity is about as good in the 80's than 00's or 10's. There was at least 3 absolute contenders and a lot of teams that were very close. There wasn't as many free win teams either. But I absolutely feel that the most competitive era is the 90's, despite the Bulls ultimately winning so many championships. The Bulls never had an easy road on any of their runs. Far more of their post first round series were 6 or 7 games than 4 or 5.

If you are talking top 15 talent, there are only 4 guards considered top 15 talent the last couple of times we did the top 100 project . . . Michael Jordan (easily #1), Kobe, Oscar, and Jerry (all in the 8-15 area). 2 of those come from the 1960s. IF you are looking at worst starting guards, I will run it when I have time (though it's subjective) but I'd be surprised if the 60s show up on that scale either and you don't have the tank for worst team issue to anywhere near the same degree in the 60s as the modern era. Less teams relative to the pool of talent really does make a difference.