penbeast0 wrote:Wow, those aren't the comps I have at all.
For Dray, I don't have him as much of a rim protector, a little bit but certainly not comparable to Russell, JJJ, etc. where they are dominant in that respect. I have the best comps as Rodman, Meta World Peace, and Bobby Jones. Great defenders who defended well against bigs with lower body strength, positioning, and leaping while being all over the floor. Not great offensive matches as Green can't match Rodman's rebounding or Jones's scoring efficiency while they don't play the point forward role but defensively.
Defensively for Mutombo, I looked at Gobert, but also the likes of Eaton and late career Wilt who leveraged their great length into at the rim intimidating presences (Russell, Hakeem, DRob, way too mobile and active for steals, Bol not able to hold position inside, Mutombo and Thurmond more physical and without the length).
I suspect you greatly underrate how much Draymond actually protects the paint. I cannot find the direct data-points, but on the basis of stats like this applying a filter of "bigs and helpers":
Spoiler:
Here is how bball index grades Draymond's rim-protection over the last several years:
14: C 15: B+ 16: B+ 17: A+ 18: B- 19: B+ 20: B+ 21: A 22: B 23: A
Again, this is specifically in comparison to bigs and helpers.
If you're interested, I could probably do the same paint-load thing I did with 91 Chicago for Draymond and Rodman respectively. I suspect the tape would have Rodman spending about as many possessions as a paint-protector as Pippen while Draymond spends significantly more possessions doing that than anyone else on the Dubs but I guess it's better to check the tape and be sure. It might also, unlike the stat above, capture when teams avoid plays because of draymond's presence or when teammates rack up weakside contests because of draymond's presence
I suspect if we are on the same page on Draymond as a paint-protector the rest works itself out.
Often people bring up that he is not a “rim protecting specialist,” but Draymond’s does provide a paint presence and rim protection, while also being one of the greatest defensive communicators of the past 25 years, allowing him to quarterback defenses.
If you go through the seasons from 2015 through 2023, you see some elite tracking numbers for how much worse opponents shot against Draymond vs. everyone else for shots under 6 feet and under 10 feet from the rim. Pick any of the seasons at random; those numbers on the far right over there:
[/quote]
We saw this in the 2022 finals versus the Boston Celtics:
Nobody was making anything against Draymond these playoffs, especially in the paint or near the rim:
And the Celtics didn’t do much better:
Jayson Tatum and Jalen Brown hated going up against him:
Earlier in the 2022 playoffs, Draymond was the only one who could slow down Jokić in a little bit, shooting 67% against everybody else:
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
Hopefully Dwight wins here, I checked Draymond Green’s ranking in the 2020 RealGM 100 List; And he was 99th out of 100…
What has happened in 3 years that convinces you Draymond should be a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player? I am a bit salty about it but also very interested, would encourage to put down the Analytical aid and explain in basketball terms
RUNOFF VOTE: Dwight Howard - Pierce has a clear longevity advantage here and some strong play-off showings as well but I can't help taking Dwight here due to the quality of his prime. He had a five year stretch where he was the best center in the league including years where he led the Magic to the finals by beating LeBron's Cavs in 2009 and when he finished 2nd in MVP voting in 2011. Pierce rarely cracked the top 10 during his career, which I find a bit of a hard sell when there's still some impressive primes on the board.
WintaSoldier1 wrote:Hopefully Dwight wins here, I checked Draymond Green’s ranking in the 2020 RealGM 100 List; And he was 99th out of 100…
What has happened in 3 years that convinces you Draymond should be a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player? I am a bit salty about it but also very interested, would encourage to put down the Analytical aid and explain in basketball terms
Very briefly, and not a voter either time ...
Note: " a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player" ... he's not in yet, not a lock to be top 50. Not going in at 47, the tiebreaker loser is probably favorite for the next slot. Say he got in at 49 ... 99 is "fringe top 100" but circa 49 is just "top 50" ...
regarding "what has happened" 1) Not the same voting pool 1a) Voting doesn't require a majority (not a change otoh, but additional context to point 1) 2) Another GS title 3) More positively impactful basketball
1 and 1a are key to your question. It isn't necessarily about the player's last 3 years. Draymond is probably a a high volatility player depending on what you look for in rankings. Impact side stuff is very strong. Box is much weaker. View on intangibles can vary a bit too, I think. 2020 was probably a bad moment for Draymond: 43 games; basic on/off stuff is weak on a weak team; box aggregates generally down to non-rookie career worst levels. It shouldn't matter but one could imagine people thinking he was finished.
iggymcfrack wrote:Good post. I liked that you took the criticisms of Arizin raised in the last thread and addressed them. It’s a valid point that guys can be objectively better players in a worse era and have lesser numbers because they played in less star centered systems. If you’re comparing peaks for say Larry Bird and Luka Doncic, I think this is a very reasonable line of thought.
When comparing the ‘50s to the ‘90s, I’m not sure that style of play can really make up for having lesser numbers. The competition difference is massive comparing a worldwide league to a regional league that’s not fully integrated. Furthermore, I’m not sure that Arizin necessarily has the skillset to scale up into a larger role. He never averaged 3 APG in a season. It’s not like he was some potential offensive hub in the making that was held back due to the strategies of the time. He was pretty much just a volume scorer.
I just really don’t see what his advantage is over superstar level modern candidates. Compare him to Ray Allen for instance. I haven’t seen him get any traction yet. Allen has the same general player profile where most of what he does is just score. He had the same rTS% in a MUCH tougher league. He had a better PER over his 10 year prime than Arizin had over his 10 year career. And Allen has twice the longevity. It’s not like Allen benefited from being a heliocentric star whose volume was the key to his success. The only real edge I see for Arizin is that he had a brief moment as the biggest fish in a very small pool whereas Allen spent his whole career in a larger pool.
Appreciate the kind words iggy!
Re: competition '50s to '90s. So as I've said, I'm always going to understand people picking the more recent player because of their interpretation of the modern league is that much better than earlier leagues, but I think we tend to overstate how much of the difference is actually do to levels of talent. When drastic talent changes happen in such a domain, what you see are a bunch of guys having their careers ended early not because they are past-prime but because their prime can't cut it any more. We do see stuff like this in the '40s & '50s, but by the '60s things are pretty stable. And while Arizin peaked in the '50s, he wasn't someone who showed a glaring drop off with the arrival of new talent, and was known specifically for his futuristic skill set with his one-handed jumpshot and driving game.
It's worth noting that teammate Neil Johnston is known for hitting a brick wall when he played Bill Russell. Johnston's whole thing was an "unblockable" hook shot...but Russell blocked it. Johnston to me is pretty clearly a guy who would need to prove he could dominate with an entirely new set of tools to thrive in future eras, and I'm skeptical he could do it. Arizin on the other hand was doing stuff that you couldn't stop just by being bigger.
Re: Did Arizin have the skillset for a larger role, never averaged more than 3 APG. Ah well in a nutshell:
If Westbrook can average 10 APG, then I think anyone can if they can dribble, get their shot off, and be given sufficient primacy. UCLA teammate Kevin Love never got more than 5 APG in the NBA...but he's a far better passer.
Keep in mind though that I'd have told OKC never to think Westbrook should be used in this way, so I wouldn't be inclined to ask if others could do it. I don't think Arizin could have been Magic or Nash and that pertains to why I'm not higher than he is, but in terms of him being used to playmake more for others when scoring is his best feature, it's not something I'd be looking for him to do.
Re: Arizin vs Allen. So a lot of what you say is understandable arguments but stuff we've talked about more broadly. If you're looking to understand a thing Arizin has that Allen does, consider foul drawing.
Arizin averaged more than 7 FTA/36 in ever season of his career which went through age 33. Allen peaked at 5.0 FTA/36.
So this is a bit like the Pierce vs Allen conversation except the difference is more extreme - Arizin drew fouls better than Pierce too. Now personally I don't think it's obvious that Pierce should rank above Allen - they both have arguments - but if you understand Pierce > Allen, I'd suggest seeing Arizin > Allen the same way. Allen was at his best letting others do the ballhandling and decision making and letting them find him so he could use his killer weapon - the 3-point shot. Arizin was someone who carved the defense up himself.
I'll also note that Arizin it's basically a given that Arizin would have been a good 3-point shooter. He had something close to modern form and was known for hitting beyond 20 feet. I'm not saying I think he was as good of a pure shooter as Allen of course, but I do think that when you're evaluating Allen compared to figures from the past and Allen's numbers look more efficient, you've got to remember that that's got everything to do with the 3-point shot, which guys from the past didn't have the luxury to use.
WintaSoldier1 wrote:Hopefully Dwight wins here, I checked Draymond Green’s ranking in the 2020 RealGM 100 List; And he was 99th out of 100…
What has happened in 3 years that convinces you Draymond should be a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player? I am a bit salty about it but also very interested, would encourage to put down the Analytical aid and explain in basketball terms
Very briefly, and not a voter either time ...
Note: " a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player" ... he's not in yet, not a lock to be top 50. Not going in at 47, the tiebreaker loser is probably favorite for the next slot. Say he got in at 49 ... 99 is "fringe top 100" but circa 49 is just "top 50" ...
regarding "what has happened" 1) Not the same voting pool 1a) Voting doesn't require a majority (not a change otoh, but additional context to point 1) 2) Another GS title 3) More positively impactful basketball
1 and 1a are key to your question. It isn't necessarily about the player's last 3 years. Draymond is probably a a high volatility player depending on what you look for in rankings. Impact side stuff is very strong. Box is much weaker. View on intangibles can vary a bit too, I think. 2020 was probably a bad moment for Draymond: 43 games; basic on/off stuff is weak on a weak team; box aggregates generally down to non-rookie career worst levels. It shouldn't matter but one could imagine people thinking he was finished.
Sorry but what does me having to be a voter have to do with the general sentiment of what I’m saying?
But the general idea I get is that people were prisoners of the moment during that time… So can you envision a reality where we as voters are currently a prisoner of the moment in this time???
Even if the voting pool is different, in a months long survey( That’s what this is); It is insane for a player who was barley a top 100 player to make a jump of this magnitude in a span of 3 seasons.
Also 50~ means around 50… The ~ is used as an estimate… There’s only 5 nominees and he’s garnered 3 votes this round he’ll likely be in by 55 or below.
My biggest concern is every-time I see Draymond Green votes it always goes back to analytics… Which has now become the modern day box score watching. I can see the value of using analytics as it’s a consistent formula to measure players but, I still have yet to be enlightened by a real analysis that does not include analytical reference or blatant propaganda based on analytical analysis on why Draymond Green as a Player is a top 50~ player or so…
was arguably the most valuable regular-season player in 2011 and probably a top 5 player from 09-11.
WintaSoldier1 wrote:
Owly wrote:
WintaSoldier1 wrote:Hopefully Dwight wins here, I checked Draymond Green’s ranking in the 2020 RealGM 100 List; And he was 99th out of 100…
What has happened in 3 years that convinces you Draymond should be a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player? I am a bit salty about it but also very interested, would encourage to put down the Analytical aid and explain in basketball terms
Very briefly, and not a voter either time ...
Note: " a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player" ... he's not in yet, not a lock to be top 50. Not going in at 47, the tiebreaker loser is probably favorite for the next slot. Say he got in at 49 ... 99 is "fringe top 100" but circa 49 is just "top 50" ...
regarding "what has happened" 1) Not the same voting pool 1a) Voting doesn't require a majority (not a change otoh, but additional context to point 1) 2) Another GS title 3) More positively impactful basketball
1 and 1a are key to your question. It isn't necessarily about the player's last 3 years. Draymond is probably a a high volatility player depending on what you look for in rankings. Impact side stuff is very strong. Box is much weaker. View on intangibles can vary a bit too, I think. 2020 was probably a bad moment for Draymond: 43 games; basic on/off stuff is weak on a weak team; box aggregates generally down to non-rookie career worst levels. It shouldn't matter but one could imagine people thinking he was finished.
Sorry but what does me having to be a voter have to do with the general sentiment of what I’m saying?
But the general idea I get is that people were prisoners of the moment during that time… So can you envision a reality where we as voters are currently a prisoner of the moment in this time???
Even if the voting pool is different, in a months long survey( That’s what this is); It is insane for a player who was barley a top 100 player to make a jump of this magnitude in a span of 3 seasons.
Also 50~ means around 50… The ~ is used as an estimate… There’s only 5 nominees and he’s garnered 3 votes this round he’ll likely be in by 55 or below.
My biggest concern is every-time I see Draymond Green votes it always goes back to analytics… Which has now become the modern day box score watching. I can see the value of using analytics as it’s a consistent formula to measure players but, I still have yet to be enlightened by a real analysis that does not include analytical reference or blatant propaganda based on analytical analysis on why Draymond Green as a Player is a top 50~ player or so…
I think we really need to stop hiding between words like "analytics" and "formulas" when specific claims and evidence is offered. What is being referenced on the pro-draymond side is winning and all sorts of things tied to winning including that which is mostly directly tied to winning as well as general team-success.
Anything related to winning likes draymond. Cases have been made his skillset correlates and you have provided everything short of the outright systematic tape tracking("eyetest") that is very rarely offered for or against players which...ironically enough...has largely been undertook by posters on the pro-draymond side of things.
If you care about winning, you are going to have a very hard-time justifying Draymond as a fringe-top 100 player, because ultimately, any sort of rigorous ranking would also have to justify assumptions like "you need to be an all-time rim-protector to raise defensive floor" with some sort of winning-correlate.
The burden is yours. If you want to pushback against the wave of analytics, then offer a positive argument justifying that player x, y, or z are more likely to win you games. Nothing is more irksome than those who cannot logically justify their claims complaining about other posters logically justifying claims they disagree with.
Excluded from Owly's list of explanations was
4) some people changed their mind.
If a voting block(and there is significant overlap) with all the rather unusual stipulations this project entails to make changes in opinoin more "earned"(like the nominee system) sees a player jump 40-50 spots, then there's a chance the player's case was well argued and that is why the change took place.
Status quo takes tends to be difficult to overcome in basketball, If the overton window has greatly shifted, one could reasonably argue that lays credence to Draymond's validity at the top 50ish or so of an OAT ranking with a more thorough process and curation/justification system than any other I'm aware of.
But that might require us to consider readjusting certain priors so "prisoner of the moment" it is.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
WintaSoldier1 wrote:Hopefully Dwight wins here, I checked Draymond Green’s ranking in the 2020 RealGM 100 List; And he was 99th out of 100…
What has happened in 3 years that convinces you Draymond should be a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player? I am a bit salty about it but also very interested, would encourage to put down the Analytical aid and explain in basketball terms
Very briefly, and not a voter either time ...
Note: " a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player" ... he's not in yet, not a lock to be top 50. Not going in at 47, the tiebreaker loser is probably favorite for the next slot. Say he got in at 49 ... 99 is "fringe top 100" but circa 49 is just "top 50" ...
regarding "what has happened" 1) Not the same voting pool 1a) Voting doesn't require a majority (not a change otoh, but additional context to point 1) 2) Another GS title 3) More positively impactful basketball
1 and 1a are key to your question. It isn't necessarily about the player's last 3 years. Draymond is probably a a high volatility player depending on what you look for in rankings. Impact side stuff is very strong. Box is much weaker. View on intangibles can vary a bit too, I think. 2020 was probably a bad moment for Draymond: 43 games; basic on/off stuff is weak on a weak team; box aggregates generally down to non-rookie career worst levels. It shouldn't matter but one could imagine people thinking he was finished.
Sorry but what does me having to be a voter have to do with the general sentiment of what I’m saying?
But the general idea I get is that people were prisoners of the moment during that time… So can you envision a reality where we as voters are currently a prisoner of the moment in this time???
Even if the voting pool is different, in a months long survey( That’s what this is); It is insane for a player who was barley a top 100 player to make a jump of this magnitude in a span of 3 seasons.
Also 50~ means around 50… The ~ is used as an estimate… There’s only 5 nominees and he’s garnered 3 votes this round he’ll likely be in by 55 or below.
My biggest concern is every-time I see Draymond Green votes it always goes back to analytics… Which has now become the modern day box score watching. I can see the value of using analytics as it’s a consistent formula to measure players but, I still have yet to be enlightened by a real analysis that does not include analytical reference or blatant propaganda based on analytical analysis on why Draymond Green as a Player is a top 50~ player or so…
1) I wasn't a voter either time. I'm the one being brief, I'm the one that hasn't voted. I don't know why you would assume I'd be talking about you or what relevance that could have. With me it says I don't have investment in either list. I'm not defending either one because I have stock in it.
2) Yes. All voters vote within a context. I don't particularly see this as a great Draymond moment in this instance, but maybe it will appear so in retrospect depending on what he does in the future.
3) It's not an if. The voter pool is different. The duration of the project, so far as I can tell, has very little to do with what's being discussed. The voter pool does. It's not a huge pool either time too so changes can make a pretty big difference. You still focus on the ranking and the perception of it as a "jump". Places isn't a good unit of measure, not saying there's a better alternative here - it's just probably not something to get invested in. In a separate example Terrell Brandon and George McGinnis are 50 ranks apart in the all-time RS Win Share list. They are also 8.64 WS apart. The second is much more revealing. The WS is relatively constant but those players could be packed together or far apart. Generally, further out from the outliers at the top, a lot of gaps are negligible. Those who ad hoc their lists are partially doing so because they don't have strong prior impressions because these players are close. Those who have a prior list can often be shifted because these things are pretty close. I read the line as a regular dash. I guess the print is too small. So the not guaranteed top 50 comment was probably superfluous. I don't think something indicating "around" top 50 or top 50 ish and fringe top 100 is balanced in any case. The latter locks you into the bottom end of the range and maybe outside.
4) "Analytics" is just attempting to understand what's going on on the court in a systematic way. No one number is a holy grail, all of them have their flaws. I don't see why including it would disqualify it from your consideration but the phrasing in the latter part of that last sentence seems to imply that merely containing it is somehow bad.
I'm not sure whether you're looking to the why's of why players landed where they did which can be found in the voting of the particular projects or just want to say Draymond's bad for which Draymond voters, if so inclined can argue with you, or not.
Oh and an additional point I should have put is sometimes evidence (including impact studies) are not created in real time so again it might not be what the player did in the time so much as evidence might emerge beyond what was previously available.
WintaSoldier1 wrote:Hopefully Dwight wins here, I checked Draymond Green’s ranking in the 2020 RealGM 100 List; And he was 99th out of 100…
What has happened in 3 years that convinces you Draymond should be a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player? I am a bit salty about it but also very interested, would encourage to put down the Analytical aid and explain in basketball terms
Very briefly, and not a voter either time ...
Note: " a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player" ... he's not in yet, not a lock to be top 50. Not going in at 47, the tiebreaker loser is probably favorite for the next slot. Say he got in at 49 ... 99 is "fringe top 100" but circa 49 is just "top 50" ...
regarding "what has happened" 1) Not the same voting pool 1a) Voting doesn't require a majority (not a change otoh, but additional context to point 1) 2) Another GS title 3) More positively impactful basketball
1 and 1a are key to your question. It isn't necessarily about the player's last 3 years. Draymond is probably a a high volatility player depending on what you look for in rankings. Impact side stuff is very strong. Box is much weaker. View on intangibles can vary a bit too, I think. 2020 was probably a bad moment for Draymond: 43 games; basic on/off stuff is weak on a weak team; box aggregates generally down to non-rookie career worst levels. It shouldn't matter but one could imagine people thinking he was finished.
Sorry but what does me having to be a voter have to do with the general sentiment of what I’m saying?
But the general idea I get is that people were prisoners of the moment during that time… So can you envision a reality where we as voters are currently a prisoner of the moment in this time???
Even if the voting pool is different, in a months long survey( That’s what this is); It is insane for a player who was barley a top 100 player to make a jump of this magnitude in a span of 3 seasons.
Also 50~ means around 50… The ~ is used as an estimate… There’s only 5 nominees and he’s garnered 3 votes this round he’ll likely be in by 55 or below.
My biggest concern is every-time I see Draymond Green votes it always goes back to analytics… Which has now become the modern day box score watching. I can see the value of using analytics as it’s a consistent formula to measure players but, I still have yet to be enlightened by a real analysis that does not include analytical reference or blatant propaganda based on analytical analysis on why Draymond Green as a Player is a top 50~ player or so…
It’s really not that crazy. The main thing holding back Draymond right now is his longevity. I voted Pierce not because I thought he peaked higher but because he has 46K minutes to Draymond’s 22K. Well three years ago Draymond’s 22K minutes played were 16K. In the interim, he won his 4th championship and his second as the clear cut 2nd best player without Kevin Durant.
Giannis jumped from #74 in the last project to #25 this time. Jokic went from #95 to #26. Anthony Davis went from #61 to #42 and should have risen much higher IMO. Ultimately though, why would we want to base our rankings on what a previous player pool thought three years ago? The whole point of this project is to try to get rid of your own biases and look at everything objectivity with fresh eyes. To overcome the prejudices of long held beliefs and see things from a different perspective to ultimately change our minds of that which we were sure of in the presence of fresh information. If we were just trying to regurgitate previous lists with minor updates for previous years, this would be a very boring project indeed and wouldn’t warrant anywhere near the time and energy that we have put into it.
If you’re worried about people overrating Draymond due to being “prisoners of the moment”, I….. don’t think that’s much of a concern. He’s coming off a suspension and has been widely reviled recently for his continually dirty play. If anything, I think it might be hard for some people to be objective right now due to their personal dislike for Draymond. That factor swings against him if anything.
With all that said, I still wouldn’t vote for Draymond right now. I have Pierce ahead of him due to longevity, Embiid due to peak, and would consider a couple other guys who haven’t been nominated yet like Payton as well. I think he’s absolutely a good candidate at this point though and would take him ahead of most of the current nominees.
was arguably the most valuable regular-season player in 2011 and probably a top 5 player from 09-11.
WintaSoldier1 wrote:
Owly wrote:Very briefly, and not a voter either time ...
Note: " a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player" ... he's not in yet, not a lock to be top 50. Not going in at 47, the tiebreaker loser is probably favorite for the next slot. Say he got in at 49 ... 99 is "fringe top 100" but circa 49 is just "top 50" ...
regarding "what has happened" 1) Not the same voting pool 1a) Voting doesn't require a majority (not a change otoh, but additional context to point 1) 2) Another GS title 3) More positively impactful basketball
1 and 1a are key to your question. It isn't necessarily about the player's last 3 years. Draymond is probably a a high volatility player depending on what you look for in rankings. Impact side stuff is very strong. Box is much weaker. View on intangibles can vary a bit too, I think. 2020 was probably a bad moment for Draymond: 43 games; basic on/off stuff is weak on a weak team; box aggregates generally down to non-rookie career worst levels. It shouldn't matter but one could imagine people thinking he was finished.
Sorry but what does me having to be a voter have to do with the general sentiment of what I’m saying?
But the general idea I get is that people were prisoners of the moment during that time… So can you envision a reality where we as voters are currently a prisoner of the moment in this time???
Even if the voting pool is different, in a months long survey( That’s what this is); It is insane for a player who was barley a top 100 player to make a jump of this magnitude in a span of 3 seasons.
Also 50~ means around 50… The ~ is used as an estimate… There’s only 5 nominees and he’s garnered 3 votes this round he’ll likely be in by 55 or below.
My biggest concern is every-time I see Draymond Green votes it always goes back to analytics… Which has now become the modern day box score watching. I can see the value of using analytics as it’s a consistent formula to measure players but, I still have yet to be enlightened by a real analysis that does not include analytical reference or blatant propaganda based on analytical analysis on why Draymond Green as a Player is a top 50~ player or so…
I think we really need to stop hiding between words like "analytics" and "formulas" when specific claims and evidence is offered. What is being referenced on the pro-draymond side is winning and all sorts of things tied to winning including that which is mostly directly tied to winning as well as general team-success.
Anything related to winning likes draymond. Cases have been made his skillset correlates and you have provided everything short of the outright systematic tape tracking("eyetest") that is very rarely offered for or against players which...ironically enough...has largely been undertook by posters on the pro-draymond side of things.
If you care about winning, you are going to have a very hard-time justifying Draymond as a fringe-top 100 player, because ultimately, any sort of rigorous ranking would also have to justify assumptions like "you need to be an all-time rim-protector to raise defensive floor" with some sort of winning-correlate.
The burden is yours. If you want to pushback against the wave of analytics, then offer a positive argument justifying that player x, y, or z are more likely to win you games. Nothing is more irksome than those who cannot logically justify their claims complaining about other posters logically justifying claims they disagree with.
Excluded from Owly's list of explanations was
4) some people changed their mind.
If a voting block(and there is significant overlap) with all the rather unusual stipulations this project entails to make changes in opinoin more "earned"(like the nominee system) sees a player jump 40-50 spots, then there's a chance the player's case was well argued and that is why the change took place.
Status quo takes tends to be difficult to overcome in basketball, If the overton window has greatly shifted, one could reasonably argue that lays credence to Draymond's validity at the top 50ish or so of an OAT ranking with a more thorough process and curation/justification system than any other I'm aware of.
But that might require us to consider readjusting certain priors so "prisoner of the moment" it is.
I think your posts are interesting and worthwhile to read.
My whole argument has been based on how Winning Bias/ Championship bias effectively neuters critical thinking in basketball conversation, I always respond on my phone so I won’t go bother to find it but my first post was about how in the messages I’ve read winning bias is a heavy influence.
Even when I read your posts they’re full of propaganda about winning and how the formulas given in analytics are about evidence he’s a proven winner… Not about who is the better basketball player or components of Draymond’s game that makes him a adequate choice for a top 50~ or so selection.
My general claims as far, In response:
Dwight Should Win this Election Iverson’s position in this forum is heavily diminished by winning bias effecting him negatively Draymond’s position in this forum is heavily aided positively by winning bias. —
I agree with your Status Quo part, but what has happened in the 3 years since 2020 for Draymond to go up 50 spots?
Answer: A Championship.
If the only way we can determine who is a Great player and deserves to be at X spot is by the result of their ability( Aka how much they win) instead of their ability itself(Aka how good of a player they are) it’s not a Greatest basketball player list, it’s a “most winningest player list”
was arguably the most valuable regular-season player in 2011 and probably a top 5 player from 09-11.
WintaSoldier1 wrote:
Sorry but what does me having to be a voter have to do with the general sentiment of what I’m saying?
But the general idea I get is that people were prisoners of the moment during that time… So can you envision a reality where we as voters are currently a prisoner of the moment in this time???
Even if the voting pool is different, in a months long survey( That’s what this is); It is insane for a player who was barley a top 100 player to make a jump of this magnitude in a span of 3 seasons.
Also 50~ means around 50… The ~ is used as an estimate… There’s only 5 nominees and he’s garnered 3 votes this round he’ll likely be in by 55 or below.
My biggest concern is every-time I see Draymond Green votes it always goes back to analytics… Which has now become the modern day box score watching. I can see the value of using analytics as it’s a consistent formula to measure players but, I still have yet to be enlightened by a real analysis that does not include analytical reference or blatant propaganda based on analytical analysis on why Draymond Green as a Player is a top 50~ player or so…
I think we really need to stop hiding between words like "analytics" and "formulas" when specific claims and evidence is offered. What is being referenced on the pro-draymond side is winning and all sorts of things tied to winning including that which is mostly directly tied to winning as well as general team-success.
Anything related to winning likes draymond. Cases have been made his skillset correlates and you have provided everything short of the outright systematic tape tracking("eyetest") that is very rarely offered for or against players which...ironically enough...has largely been undertook by posters on the pro-draymond side of things.
If you care about winning, you are going to have a very hard-time justifying Draymond as a fringe-top 100 player, because ultimately, any sort of rigorous ranking would also have to justify assumptions like "you need to be an all-time rim-protector to raise defensive floor" with some sort of winning-correlate.
The burden is yours. If you want to pushback against the wave of analytics, then offer a positive argument justifying that player x, y, or z are more likely to win you games. Nothing is more irksome than those who cannot logically justify their claims complaining about other posters logically justifying claims they disagree with.
Excluded from Owly's list of explanations was
4) some people changed their mind.
If a voting block(and there is significant overlap) with all the rather unusual stipulations this project entails to make changes in opinoin more "earned"(like the nominee system) sees a player jump 40-50 spots, then there's a chance the player's case was well argued and that is why the change took place.
Status quo takes tends to be difficult to overcome in basketball, If the overton window has greatly shifted, one could reasonably argue that lays credence to Draymond's validity at the top 50ish or so of an OAT ranking with a more thorough process and curation/justification system than any other I'm aware of.
But that might require us to consider readjusting certain priors so "prisoner of the moment" it is.
I think your posts are interesting and worthwhile to read.
My whole argument has been based on how Winning Bias/ Championship bias effectively neuters critical thinking in basketball conversation, I always respond on my phone so I won’t go bother to find it but my first post was about how in the messages I’ve read winning bias is a heavy influence.
Even when I read your posts they’re full of propaganda about winning and how the formulas given in analytics are about evidence he’s a proven winner… Not about who is the better basketball player or components of Draymond’s game that makes him a adequate choice for a top 50~ or so selection.
The last page and a half of Draymond content have primarily centered around answering the question of "to what degree does Draymond protect the paint". Is that not a matter of "who is the better basketball player or components of draymond's game that makes him a adequate choice for a top 50- or so selection"?
If it literally requires we look at tape and count the number of possessions Draymond is protecting or co-protecting the paint, that kind of thing can and has been done before, but it ultimately boils down to counting basketball actions, which is what much of the data linked here and on the last page actually does. There is also data which looks holistically at what happens to the team's ability to defend shots at the rim when Draymond leaves. So we have an extended eyetest and then objective results tied to said eyetest specifically centered on assessing a specific aspect of Draymond's game you called into dispute.
If that is not basketball analysis than what is?
My general claims as far, In response:
Dwight Should Win this Election Iverson’s position in this forum is heavily diminished by winning bias effecting him negatively Draymond’s position in this forum is heavily aided positively by winning bias. —
I agree with your Status Quo part, but what has happened in the 3 years since 2020 for Draymond to go up 50 spots?
Answer: A Championship.
If the only way we can determine who is a Great player and deserves to be at X spot is by the result of their ability( Aka how much they win) instead of their ability itself(Aka how good of a player they are) it’s not a Greatest basketball player list, it’s a “most winningest player list”
Well, the argument is not "draymond won 5 championships" which would see him go higher, it is "those 5 championships" paired with other winning-related evidence(including of course just straight raw winning with and without draymond) suggest he is a player good enough to be considered at roughly the 50 spot.
Goodness and ability here are defined as "likelihood of making teams win" with the actual teams he was on and the results being given more weight than hypothetical considerations.
Why, 50 spots? The championship helps certainly, but I think you are probably oversimplfying matters. The last year of discourse here has seen a large volume of film, granular, and yes, holistic "winning" based analysis pushing towards certain theories that Draymond happens to be a natural beneficiary of. For example,
-> the idea that the box-scores often used(remember: there is no objective standard for what humans can count or not count in terms of basketball actions) are skewed against bigs and players who protect the paint the most(which HCL did a big amount of work demonstrating Draymond can be sorted as). The first big suprise of the project, Kareem upsurping Jordan(and doing so by a comfortable margin), is quite arguably driven by this(the career-value gap was well understood when Jordan stomped him last time) and there have now been hundreds of pages worth of discussion, in this very project, where that theory has been a large focal point.
-> the idea that being able to coordinate teammates/monopolize on-court decision-making/handle the ball at volume effectively is highly valuable and not captured in coventional box-scores. This came into play as early as the #1 thread and also has seen who knows how many pages worth of air-time. Draymond is a rare two-way example of this putting him in the same table of the likes of lebron(#1) and russell(#4) who have specifically been championed highly lately for efforts elevating even "limited" teammates(floor-raising) beyond what a conventional box-score would suggest.
Further still, we now have an additional theory, offered by a long-time voter and current project-runner, that this sort of impact A. not only improves a teams prospects of winning but B. can work against a player's analytics:
Spoiler:
Doctor MJ wrote:
MrLurker wrote:
Rishkar wrote: I would say some of the intangibles do show up on the basketball court, the key thing about them is that they are things that we struggle to quantify in any direct way. To consider the layers of it:
1. Think of the "middle linebacker" role as exemplified by Kevin Garnett (in Boston) and Draymond Green recognizing what the offense is doing and calling out to teammates to get them into position.
2. Now consider that such players can do this to some degree while on the bench.
3. Now consider that such players do this in practice and teach their teammates how to be more aware.
(1) is something that shows up at least on on-off stats, but (2) and (3) can actually make the player look less impactful by on-off stats. I would consider all of them to be intangible though.
This is an interesting notion. I wonder if this concept also works with offense - with quarterbacks like Magic, Robertson, James, Paul, and Nash
In theory a player who can do both - be a linebacker and quarterback - may see the largest negative effect on their WAR-style stats. Bird, James, and Paul come to mind as possible examples. To a lesser degree - perhaps players like Pippen and Stockton too.
And then there is a player-coach like Russell whose intangible effect may be the most pronounced - presuming this concept is accurate.
Certainly works with offense too.
I will say that position on the court matters here. If you're facing away from most of the players on the court - as a point of attack defender typically is - you're not going to be able to take on the linebacker role. Similarly on offense, someone out on the perimeter facing the basketball will be best able to call the play. This has a natural tendency to make those positioned to do it on defense not able to do it on offense, and vice versa.
But of course it's not a rule. A guy like Draymond will tend to be on the interior on defense but often works on the perimeter on offense.
You might note the author of this, possibly conceiving this after several lengthy debates where the idea of "on-court coaching" was brought up, is one of 4 Draymond voters in this thread.
Now consider that we have a bunch of posters recently buying into the idea that there really are only two true goat candidates(Lebron and Russell) and Mount Rushmore is superfluous: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2334379 https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2323495
both have had who knows how many pages worth written about both of those two aforementioned concepts in their defense as a counter to conventional box-score cases from Jordan and Wilt respectively, even in this very project. Both have seen posters who voted against one of the two months ago revise their assessment to consider them in a tier of their own.
With or without that championship, anyone buying into either, let-alone both theories would quite naturally come to the conclusion that Draymond is actually quite underrated and likely move him significantly higher.
Then we get into all the neat meta-discussions that have also had pages upon pages written on:
-> Absolutist time-travelling/modernism being "purer" than era-relativity(yeah draymond stands to gain) -> is RAPM not gospel? WOWY, Colinearity/minute distribution((Draymond is someone who looks pretty good on all three fronts) -> What is useful to count or not count?(a push to devalue blocks also is something Draymond benefits from)
I could go on, but Draymond quite conveniently happens to be the middle-circle in a great many favorable ven diagrams that have been drawn up over the months proceeding the project which proceeded to get fleshed out in great detail. On top of that he is an easy bone to chew for those who really buy into ben taylor theories(which tend to often take negative views of players who monopolize decision-making and protect the paint), people who like championships(yeah that 4th ring helps both), and those who buy into playoff lift.
He's also done some work assuaging his biggest knock(career value).
Put it all together and you have a pretty perfect scenario for a player to jump a shitton on a board where change is generally harder-earned.
This is why it's important to track specifics when trying to understand perception-shifts. The data you seem to associate greatly with draymond's rise were very much present three years ago. The application of that data has greatly shifted for some. And that shift was present from the onset of this project before many graphs and tape-breakdowns and historical knowledge was compiled and utilized by many posters to justify how and where they used the most simple evidence in sport(winning) to steer themselves.
When the very ground player analysis stands on shifts in myriad ways, great shifts for specific players are bound to occur. Draymond happned to be at the right place and time to benefit from volatile surroundings.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
Doctor MJ wrote:It's worth noting that teammate Neil Johnston is known for hitting a brick wall when he played Bill Russell. Johnston's whole thing was an "unblockable" hook shot...but Russell blocked it. Johnston to me is pretty clearly a guy who would need to prove he could dominate with an entirely new set of tools to thrive in future eras, and I'm skeptical he could do it. Arizin on the other hand was doing stuff that you couldn't stop just by being bigger.
Random trivia some may not know, Johnston was Connie Hawkins first professional coach with the Pittsburgh Rens (after resigning from the Warriors after 2 seasons with Wilt).
Doctor MJ wrote:It's worth noting that teammate Neil Johnston is known for hitting a brick wall when he played Bill Russell. Johnston's whole thing was an "unblockable" hook shot...but Russell blocked it. Johnston to me is pretty clearly a guy who would need to prove he could dominate with an entirely new set of tools to thrive in future eras, and I'm skeptical he could do it. Arizin on the other hand was doing stuff that you couldn't stop just by being bigger.
Random trivia some may not know, Johnston was Connie Hawkins first professional coach with the Pittsburgh Rens (after resigning from the Warriors after 2 seasons with Wilt).
On the brick wall thing ...
... I've come across different versions of this
From memory (so can't be sure or verify) there's he got injured playing Russell and or he crumpled to the floor getting blocked and was never the same again or Russell solved him or neutered him (again maybe "and he's never the same again")
The way it's traditionally presented is more anecdotal than numerical which isn't to say Russell having his number necessarily isn't true, I'd just want to look at the numbers closer and look at the variance for such things before really concluding on the matter. At a very quick first glance I think he is shooting worse versus Russell era Boston.
Vote: Paul Pierce Alt: Draymond Green (over Dwight)
I'd certainly take Dwight's peak. For 4 seasons (2008-2011) Dwight was anchoring good to great defenses while being good enough on offense that Stan Van Gundy and the Magic were able to build some strong offenses around him without elite talent. Those Magic teams are arguably one of the more influential roster constructions we've ever seen, and Dwight's super powers allowed some funky problematic players to be maximized. Hedo Turkoglu, a player that was too slow (without strength to compensate) to dominate the ball or fit into elite defensive lineups, became an all-star calibre player (didn't actually make the all-star team due to slow starts or people giving credit to the wrong Magic players at the time) next to Dwight's vertical spacing and defensive cover. Jameer Nelson and Rashard Lewis made all-star teams in part thanks to the attention Dwight sucked into the rim. Really weird team and it took a magical (pardon the pun) player to make it all work. People like to say "if you need a star ball handler next to you, how valuable are you?" but when that star ball handler is someone like Hedo or Jameer...I mean that's almost a sub-all-star level player so Dwight did not need much. It's the same argument KG heads make, or the argument we make for KG, TD, Robinson, etc. Defensive anchor with enough offensive value.
But it was just 4 years. Even during this peak, the warts were bad. Horrible free-throw shooting, zero scoring away from the rim, and very poor passing. To me the glaring holes are enough to downgrade his MVP-level seasons to weak-MVP or all-NBA level ones. The value he provided is undeniable, but the problems were glaring. He had plenty of putrid playoff series, especially on offense. Dwight was held under 17ppg in 4 different series in those prime years. So many turnovers. Veterans knew how to mess him up good. Then there's the rest of his career...! He definitely had moments of value, and continued to pile up numbers here and there. But I from 2012 onwards, Dwight is a role player with variable impact. He stays an elite rebounder, but he's a drag on offenses, and the high-end defensive impact is gone after back surgery.
Paul Pierce, by contrast, puts together 3 billion solid seasons. He's a positive efficiency scorer every year of his career (until the final 2 with the Clippers), so despite his early reputation as a chucker, he was a much more reliable offensive balast than his early 2000s Eastern counterparts (Vince, Tmac, Iverson). He played on ATROCIOUS rosters in Boston for almost a decade before the KG trade. He immediately shows he fits in beautifully on a high-end roster and can be a useful part of an elite defense. Pierce wasn't as electric as some of his peers but man... what an offensive repetoire. - Elite foul drawer with those big hips and old man drives. - Resilient scoring with that fadeaway off his strong base being an ideal crunch time offense against strong defenses. - Strong 3-point shooter. Versatile here with good off-the dribble skills and some movement shooting.
And then Pierce stretches out his post prime pretty beautifully, providing strong playoff value for teams that probably should have lost in the first round. Pierce low-key invented how to shut down Demar Derozan, and is very responsible for the less fair playoff reputation of Kyle Lowry (Paul Pierce also had a game 7 winning block against Kyle). Pierce basically didn't miss shots for Washington in their 2015 playoff run.
Most importantly, Game of Zones already decided he was the GOAT, so I don't know why we didn't factor that in at #1?
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."
Doctor MJ wrote:It's worth noting that teammate Neil Johnston is known for hitting a brick wall when he played Bill Russell. Johnston's whole thing was an "unblockable" hook shot...but Russell blocked it. Johnston to me is pretty clearly a guy who would need to prove he could dominate with an entirely new set of tools to thrive in future eras, and I'm skeptical he could do it. Arizin on the other hand was doing stuff that you couldn't stop just by being bigger.
Random trivia some may not know, Johnston was Connie Hawkins first professional coach with the Pittsburgh Rens (after resigning from the Warriors after 2 seasons with Wilt).
Indeed. Hawk wasn't a fan though. He told of asking Johnston to help him develop a hook shot, and Johnston grabbing a ball, taking a hook shot and saying in effect, "Do it like that."
Doctor MJ wrote:It's worth noting that teammate Neil Johnston is known for hitting a brick wall when he played Bill Russell. Johnston's whole thing was an "unblockable" hook shot...but Russell blocked it. Johnston to me is pretty clearly a guy who would need to prove he could dominate with an entirely new set of tools to thrive in future eras, and I'm skeptical he could do it. Arizin on the other hand was doing stuff that you couldn't stop just by being bigger.
Random trivia some may not know, Johnston was Connie Hawkins first professional coach with the Pittsburgh Rens (after resigning from the Warriors after 2 seasons with Wilt).
On the brick wall thing ...
... I've come across different versions of this
From memory (so can't be sure or verify) there's he got injured playing Russell and or he crumpled to the floor getting blocked and was never the same again or Russell solved him or neutered him (again maybe "and he's never the same again")
The way it's traditionally presented is more anecdotal than numerical which isn't to say Russell having his number necessarily isn't true, I'd just want to look at the numbers closer and look at the variance for such things before really concluding on the matter. At a very quick first glance I think he is shooting worse versus Russell era Boston.
I'd looked at it before, but can't find it right now I want to say he was at ~19 pts/g @ 48-49 TS% against Boston in the RS in '57/'58. Worse certainly, but it didn't feel beyond what plenty of other good centers suffered playing against Russell.
And Owly, do you have anything about him being injured in the '58 Playoffs, I know he took the serious knee injury in the '59 preseason that effectively ended his career, but the '58 playoffs are way way below his prior level even in the non-Russell series.
And he and Russell never met in any other playoff series (perhaps due to Arizin's '57 injury - at least I presume it was an injury).
was arguably the most valuable regular-season player in 2011 and probably a top 5 player from 09-11.
I think we really need to stop hiding between words like "analytics" and "formulas" when specific claims and evidence is offered. What is being referenced on the pro-draymond side is winning and all sorts of things tied to winning including that which is mostly directly tied to winning as well as general team-success.
Anything related to winning likes draymond. Cases have been made his skillset correlates and you have provided everything short of the outright systematic tape tracking("eyetest") that is very rarely offered for or against players which...ironically enough...has largely been undertook by posters on the pro-draymond side of things.
If you care about winning, you are going to have a very hard-time justifying Draymond as a fringe-top 100 player, because ultimately, any sort of rigorous ranking would also have to justify assumptions like "you need to be an all-time rim-protector to raise defensive floor" with some sort of winning-correlate.
The burden is yours. If you want to pushback against the wave of analytics, then offer a positive argument justifying that player x, y, or z are more likely to win you games. Nothing is more irksome than those who cannot logically justify their claims complaining about other posters logically justifying claims they disagree with.
Excluded from Owly's list of explanations was
4) some people changed their mind.
If a voting block(and there is significant overlap) with all the rather unusual stipulations this project entails to make changes in opinoin more "earned"(like the nominee system) sees a player jump 40-50 spots, then there's a chance the player's case was well argued and that is why the change took place.
Status quo takes tends to be difficult to overcome in basketball, If the overton window has greatly shifted, one could reasonably argue that lays credence to Draymond's validity at the top 50ish or so of an OAT ranking with a more thorough process and curation/justification system than any other I'm aware of.
But that might require us to consider readjusting certain priors so "prisoner of the moment" it is.
I think your posts are interesting and worthwhile to read.
My whole argument has been based on how Winning Bias/ Championship bias effectively neuters critical thinking in basketball conversation, I always respond on my phone so I won’t go bother to find it but my first post was about how in the messages I’ve read winning bias is a heavy influence.
Even when I read your posts they’re full of propaganda about winning and how the formulas given in analytics are about evidence he’s a proven winner… Not about who is the better basketball player or components of Draymond’s game that makes him a adequate choice for a top 50~ or so selection.
The last page and a half of Draymond content have primarily centered around answering the question of "to what degree does Draymond protect the paint". Is that not a matter of "who is the better basketball player or components of draymond's game that makes him a adequate choice for a top 50- or so selection"?
If it literally requires we look at tape and count the number of possessions Draymond is protecting or co-protecting the paint, that kind of thing can and has been done before, but it ultimately boils down to counting basketball actions, which is what much of the data linked here and on the last page actually does. There is also data which looks holistically at what happens to the team's ability to defend shots at the rim when Draymond leaves. So we have an extended eyetest and then objective results tied to said eyetest specifically centered on assessing a specific aspect of Draymond's game you called into dispute.
If that is not basketball analysis than what is?
My general claims as far, In response:
Dwight Should Win this Election Iverson’s position in this forum is heavily diminished by winning bias effecting him negatively Draymond’s position in this forum is heavily aided positively by winning bias. —
I agree with your Status Quo part, but what has happened in the 3 years since 2020 for Draymond to go up 50 spots?
Answer: A Championship.
If the only way we can determine who is a Great player and deserves to be at X spot is by the result of their ability( Aka how much they win) instead of their ability itself(Aka how good of a player they are) it’s not a Greatest basketball player list, it’s a “most winningest player list”
Well, the argument is not "draymond won 5 championships" which would see him go higher, it is "those 5 championships" paired with other winning-related evidence(including of course just straight raw winning with and without draymond) suggest he is a player good enough to be considered at roughly the 50 spot.
Goodness and ability here are defined as "likelihood of making teams win" with the actual teams he was on and the results being given more weight than hypothetical considerations.
Why, 50 spots? The championship helps certainly, but I think you are probably oversimplfying matters. The last year of discourse here has seen a large volume of film, granular, and yes, holistic "winning" based analysis pushing towards certain theories that Draymond happens to be a natural beneficiary of. For example,
-> the idea that the box-scores often used(remember: there is no objective standard for what humans can count or not count in terms of basketball actions) are skewed against bigs and players who protect the paint the most(which HCL did a big amount of work demonstrating Draymond can be sorted as). The first big suprise of the project, Kareem upsurping Jordan(and doing so by a comfortable margin), is quite arguably driven by this(the career-value gap was well understood when Jordan stomped him last time) and there have now been hundreds of pages worth of discussion, in this very project, where that theory has been a large focal point.
-> the idea that being able to coordinate teammates/monopolize on-court decision-making/handle the ball at volume effectively is highly valuable and not captured in coventional box-scores. This came into play as early as the #1 thread and also has seen who knows how many pages worth of air-time. Draymond is a rare two-way example of this putting him in the same table of the likes of lebron(#1) and russell(#4) who have specifically been championed highly lately for efforts elevating even "limited" teammates(floor-raising) beyond what a conventional box-score would suggest.
Further still, we now have an additional theory, offered by a long-time voter and current project-runner, that this sort of impact A. not only improves a teams prospects of winning but B. can work against a player's analytics:
Spoiler:
Doctor MJ wrote:
MrLurker wrote:This is an interesting notion. I wonder if this concept also works with offense - with quarterbacks like Magic, Robertson, James, Paul, and Nash
In theory a player who can do both - be a linebacker and quarterback - may see the largest negative effect on their WAR-style stats. Bird, James, and Paul come to mind as possible examples. To a lesser degree - perhaps players like Pippen and Stockton too.
And then there is a player-coach like Russell whose intangible effect may be the most pronounced - presuming this concept is accurate.
Certainly works with offense too.
I will say that position on the court matters here. If you're facing away from most of the players on the court - as a point of attack defender typically is - you're not going to be able to take on the linebacker role. Similarly on offense, someone out on the perimeter facing the basketball will be best able to call the play. This has a natural tendency to make those positioned to do it on defense not able to do it on offense, and vice versa.
But of course it's not a rule. A guy like Draymond will tend to be on the interior on defense but often works on the perimeter on offense.
You might note the author of this, possibly conceiving this after several lengthy debates where the idea of "on-court coaching" was brought up, is one of 4 Draymond voters in this thread.
Now consider that we have a bunch of posters recently buying into the idea that there really are only two true goat candidates(Lebron and Russell) and Mount Rushmore is superfluous: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2334379 https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2323495
both have had who knows how many pages worth written about both of those two aforementioned concepts in their defense as a counter to conventional box-score cases from Jordan and Wilt respectively, even in this very project. Both have seen posters who voted against one of the two months ago revise their assessment to consider them in a tier of their own.
With or without that championship, anyone buying into either, let-alone both theories would quite naturally come to the conclusion that Draymond is actually quite underrated and likely move him significantly higher.
Then we get into all the neat meta-discussions that have also had pages upon pages written on:
-> Absolutist time-travelling/modernism being "purer" than era-relativity(yeah draymond stands to gain) -> is RAPM not gospel? WOWY, Colinearity/minute distribution((Draymond is someone who looks pretty good on all three fronts) -> What is useful to count or not count?(a push to devalue blocks also is something Draymond benefits from)
I could go on, but Draymond quite conveniently happens to be the middle-circle in a great many favorable ven diagrams that have been drawn up over the months proceeding the project which proceeded to get fleshed out in great detail. On top of that he is an easy bone to chew for those who really buy into ben taylor theories(which tend to often take negative views of players who monopolize decision-making and protect the paint), people who like championships(yeah that 4th ring helps both), and those who buy into playoff lift.
He's also done some work assuaging his biggest knock(career value).
Put it all together and you have a pretty perfect scenario for a player to jump a shitton on a board where change is generally harder-earned.
This is why it's important to track specifics when trying to understand perception-shifts. The data you seem to associate greatly with draymond's rise were very much present three years ago. The application of that data has greatly shifted for some. And that shift was present from the onset of this project before many graphs and tape-breakdowns and historical knowledge was compiled and utilized by many posters to justify how and where they used the most simple evidence in sport(winning) to steer themselves.
When the very ground player analysis stands on shifts in myriad ways, great shifts for specific players are bound to occur. Draymond happned to be at the right place and time to benefit from volatile surroundings.
I'm on my computer for this one, deciding phone hassle would be too strenuous
I'll work from top to down this time [Your first points to your last points]
To your first point about what is basketball analysis, I believe it's a more holistic approach to the game. To eradicate the idea of basically categorizing basketball and fully and thoroughly watch the game without a box score or checkpoints to determine how well a player is at something. The 2k Overall System(categorizing players abilities and then ranking them) has taken over our minds and leads us to a different conclusion then what reality actually concludes.
[The idea that a Player, who'll show up as A's and B's in lots of components of basketball on a spreadsheet, but when you look at the execution of it; People will begin to question if the assessment is accurate when both the assessment and the execution can be not false.]
Although since we're on a discussion and on the topic of Draymond's help defense, from my POV it is a component of what makes Draymond a great player, but it isn't the entire catalog of what makes him a great player is the idea I was encroaching on the conversation.
^Me being insufferable for the moment --
In regards towards Draymond and his ability, the division between us is I fail to share the same perspective as in regards to what you believe ability is,
You believe ability to be the likelihood of making teams win( Which roughly translates into how well can you enrich the environment)
Ability for myself is frankly what can you do (Which roughly translates into what diversity/baggage can you bring into this environment)
Draymond as a player for me, doesn't have lots of ability... Which is a apart of the reason why he is so good, because there's so little to work with.(relative to other great players) He just sticks to what he can do paired with his basketball intellect;
Giving him a bit of extra-credit here, As an analogy most NBA Players are Talented Street Brawlers; Draymond Green is a Martial Artist.
To continue the fighting analogies, Floyd Mayweather beat Manny Pacquiao; But I still consider Manny to be a better boxer then Floyd even if Floyd won the fight.
You keep things very simplistic and analytically in a very A>B>C Manner, While I look at it from a more fluid perspective and it hurts my ability to clearly articulate my matters of concern which is why some may feel frustration about the clarity of my messages and what I want to get across. -- I can get behind the idea that some players naturally enrich the environment by pure presence when then enhances the players around them ability, I actually have a great deal of acceptance and support for the Floor Generalship intangibles and what it means to a team.
I also think that Draymond's Floor Generalship is extra valuable in practice because he isn't the main option for the Warriors.. I have a notion that Floor Generalship depreciates through the playoffs for Primary Ball Handlers based on the idea as competition gets tougher you won't be able to drag your teammates along with you as you experience heavier burdens due to teammate-dependency when it comes to generating a shot... But Draymond doesn't experience these effects as he's a "Connective" tissue for the team and isn't regulated to the same Offensive Pressures First Option/Primary Ball handlers are as Floor Generals.
Thus you have separated the Heart(The First Option's Offensive Responsibility to be the Engine) from the Pace-Maker(The Floor Generalship setting the tone/pace for teammates in order to flow as a offense)
What happens usually is if the Engine beats too hard, the pace maker will try and bring the rate back down which will cap the teams ceiling. If you separate these two entities and the heart is separate from the pace maker, The pace maker(Draymond) will operate independently from the Heart(Currry) and the dependency for the team is created in multiple different valves instead of a singular one. -- I've come to understand that basically for you analytically and theoretically there are too many signals that indicate Draymond is a level of player that you'd advocate for him so soon and it's why you're adamant about me bringing proof/evidence to derail the train of thought you currently have and advocate for; The perspective between us is too jaded for us to see each others side even if we can envision what each other believe we can't understand unless we actually went through it.
I think Draymond is a wonderful player... But when I compare the things he can do to other players there's no way I can fully say that he's a player of the caliber we are now speaking of.
It's the exact same thing when HS teams have lots of talented players with terrible decision making and they have the one Good Point who acts as the game manager and the team is total crap without him but really good with him.
The BPM/Analytics would indicate that this guy is the best player on the team, The truth is he's the most important player to that team because of the environment(Poor decision makers) decides so.
But that doesn't make him the best, it makes him the most Important. And I think there's a huge difference between Best and most Important.
[/quote]
