#1 Greatest Defensive PF of All-Time - Top 10 Defense at each position project

[Notanoob]

There are some advanced stats that go back a long way, though, like PIPM and WOWYR. I try to use those as much as I can with guys like Jones.

Out of curiosity, which results do you think are evidence of star bias? I thought we did a pretty good job with the guard positions, and while I do think the SF list is completely wack, I think that's more because of an excessive emphasis on longevity over peak and obscure advanced metrics over eye test than anything else.

Yeah, if anything I'm most bothered by the SF list, but my issue there certainly isn't due to the star bias. Neither of the guards lists actually fails the smell test, but I'm certain that there are defensive specialists, especially further back, who won't get any attention but were likely equals to some guys like Stockton. Guys who played great defense but never on good teams and thus never got recognized. Just for instance, would Tony Allen have gotten voted in if the Grizzlies never got any good? I'm not so sure, and I think that there are guys like him who I just don't know off the top of my head.

Frankly I should have done some research to come up with alternatives to the guys mentioned before throwing my thoughts out there, and I'd probably have to double check the voting threads to be sure they weren't discussed. I vaguely recall that Norm Van Lier was pretty good at PG - not a defensive specialists, but not a guy who's famous at all. I don't really know.

[cecilthesheep]

There are some advanced stats that go back a long way, though, like PIPM and WOWYR. I try to use those as much as I can with guys like Jones.

Out of curiosity, which results do you think are evidence of star bias? I thought we did a pretty good job with the guard positions, and while I do think the SF list is completely wack, I think that's more because of an excessive emphasis on longevity over peak and obscure advanced metrics over eye test than anything else.

Yeah, if anything I'm most bothered by the SF list, but my issue there certainly isn't due to the star bias. Neither of the guards lists actually fails the smell test, but I'm certain that there are defensive specialists, especially further back, who won't get any attention but were likely equals to some guys like Stockton. Guys who played great defense but never on good teams and thus never got recognized. Just for instance, would Tony Allen have gotten voted in if the Grizzlies never got any good? I'm not so sure, and I think that there are guys like him who I just don't know off the top of my head.

Frankly I should have done some research to come up with alternatives to the guys mentioned before throwing my thoughts out there, and I'd probably have to double check the voting threads to be sure they weren't discussed. I vaguely recall that Norm Van Lier was pretty good at PG - not a defensive specialists, but not a guy who's famous at all. I don't really know.

Lol I'm pretty sure I was actually advocating for Norm Van Lier in the final few point guard threads; he was great. I don't remember if I got anyone to join me, but he wasn't totally forgotten.

I do think, though, that part of it isn't just raw defensive ability, but also career accomplishments. So I don't think it's entirely unjust that Tony Allen makes it over some hypothetical other candidate who was roughly as good but was never part of a great defense. At least that's part of how I prioritize these things, whether it's fair or not.

[trex_8063]

There are some advanced stats that go back a long way, though, like PIPM and WOWYR. I try to use those as much as I can with guys like Jones.

Out of curiosity, which results do you think are evidence of star bias? I thought we did a pretty good job with the guard positions, and while I do think the SF list is completely wack, I think that's more because of an excessive emphasis on longevity over peak and obscure advanced metrics over eye test than anything else.

Yeah, if anything I'm most bothered by the SF list, but my issue there certainly isn't due to the star bias. Neither of the guards lists actually fails the smell test, but I'm certain that there are defensive specialists, especially further back, who won't get any attention but were likely equals to some guys like Stockton. Guys who played great defense but never on good teams and thus never got recognized. Just for instance, would Tony Allen have gotten voted in if the Grizzlies never got any good? I'm not so sure, and I think that there are guys like him who I just don't know off the top of my head.

Frankly I should have done some research to come up with alternatives to the guys mentioned before throwing my thoughts out there, and I'd probably have to double check the voting threads to be sure they weren't discussed. I vaguely recall that Norm Van Lier was pretty good at PG - not a defensive specialists, but not a guy who's famous at all. I don't really know.

Lol I'm pretty sure I was actually advocating for Norm Van Lier in the final few point guard threads; he was great. I don't remember if I got anyone to join me, but he wasn't totally forgotten.

No, it looks like you were the lone vote for NVL in the last PG thread; Don Buse had three votes, though, fwiw. And NVL did get some discussion, iirc.

I do think, though, that part of it isn't just raw defensive ability, but also career accomplishments. So I don't think it's entirely unjust that Tony Allen makes it over some hypothetical other candidate who was roughly as good but was never part of a great defense. At least that's part of how I prioritize these things, whether it's fair or not.

This is certainly true to a degree (for many participants, at least). And also----as has been mentioned to a handful of others who have not participated nor followed nor thoroughly read the project but nonetheless popped in to say "what the hell??"----longevity has been a major factor for many voters. Guys who were perhaps a 9 (on a scale of 1-10) defensively for 8-10 years have fairly consistently been getting the nod over guys who were a 10 for only three years, for instance. This trend seems to rub some the wrong way though. C'est la vie.....