Higher defensive peak: Jerome Kersey or Buck Williams?

[SelakStreet]

I'm leaning towards Jerome Kersey for his energy and hard work but I'm more than happy for thoughts.

[Owly]

Reputationally, it's comfortably Williams. Kersey has decent box stats but was foul prone, not great laterally and generally not regarded as a fundamentally sound or notably good defender.

Williams tends to stack lesser numbers but has a far superior reputation. If not absolute elite he tended to be well regarded (twice All-D first team, twice second team, 6 years AAA graded on D by the Rick Barry Report/Bibles [from the first edition after the '89 season to after '94]. Even if those accolades seem bullish it's hard to see the case for Kersey without some major new information or reversal of contemporary observations/interpretations.

[penbeast0]

I had thought Kersey had a good defensive reputation. Owly, you always have excellent sources to back up your comments; where is the scouting report on Kersey that regards him as not fundamentally sound/notably good?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Buck Williams' Nets knocked the defending champion 76ers out of the playoffs in 1984. I think Buck Williams peak was with the Nets.

I loved the way Kersey ran and ran and played with reckless enthusiasm but Buck Williams was bigger and was always where he needed to be. By the time the Blazers reach the finals I think Buck Williams was past his phyical peak even though he is only 29 years old.

[KobesScarf]

Buck Williams is several tiers above Kersey defensively and overall.

Buck Williams is a top 17-22ish PF and is probably just outside the top 100 overall

[Owly]

I had thought Kersey had a good defensive reputation. Owly, you always have excellent sources to back up your comments; where is the scouting report on Kersey that regards him as not fundamentally sound/notably good?

The above was off recollection (with a glance at my Barry spreadsheets for Williams). The Blazers in general were thought of in some circles as athletic but "dumb" (this comes up in one of the season diaries from the time (circa 90, 91), probably "Against the World" by Kerry Eggers) and I would think Kersey (and Duckworth ... maybe ... for a star ... Drexler? or Porter a converted, rather than "natural" or "pure" point? the latter two seem harsh) would be the main targets. The lateral mobility point was an otoh recollection, and in contrast with his vertical leap.

But for specifics from the Barry Handbooks

Kersey graded (this on a -at its core - 6 point scale [D, C, B, A, AA, AAA with +es and -es] which has to be sufficient to grade end of bench guys (and here recall AAA includes Buck on D, oftentimes I think triple A wasn't elusive enough)
(years indicate date of publication/season finished - edition names would actually refer to coming year)
89: A
90: A
91: A
92: B+
93: B
94: B-
95: C
96: A-

From the defense/defensive rebounding section 89

The Kersey for Vandeweghe switch had to with Kersey's ability as a defender and rebounder. Vandeweghe provided negligible input in those areas, while Kersey, to a large extent, gets the job done. Defensively, Kersey uses his athleticism for steals (1.8 a game) and blocks (1.1 a game) and to recover readily from any mistakes - for example, tends to play too close to his man - he should make. A trademark: He can catch up to players in the open court and block layups. He's an active, aggressive defender who gets into foul trouble (six disqualifications in 1988-89). (rest is defensive rebounding)

"In sum"
(two schools of thought on him optimistic is focused on athleticism sees him on route to all star, pessimistic is focused on shooting and) believes he's an overrated defender, and sees him as a sixth man. At the present time, we favor the second notion.

90

As for defense, on the plus side is his unrelentlessness [sic]; hid biggest asset is that he never gives up on the play. His trademark: He can catch player in the open court and block layups. And he uses his athleticism to generate steals (1.5 a game) and blocks (63 for the year). But despite his work ethic and athletic ability, Kersey is a curious anomaly. While he's fast, baseline to baseline, his lateral quickness is suspect which hurts in guarding quick 3s.

91
Similar. Work ethic/hustle, chasedown blocks, boxscore (steals only noted at this point), "but his on-the-ball defense is suspect", "quick offensively, the same can't be said about his lateral mobility, which is necessary to guard the 3s"

92
Similar. No mention of effort. lateral issue phrased as "doesn't move his feet well enough", 'Sometimes he has matchup problems, being a "short" 6-7' added.

For reference in 89 there were
20 AAA defenders
18 AA
69 A defenders (a sampling includes Bird, Thomas, Miller, Worthy, Adams, Daugherty, Bowie. Manning, Norman, Tucker, Strickland, Garland, Garrick, Schayes, Donaldson, Kenny Walker, McMillan(?!), Wayne Cooper, Levingston, Greenwood, S Green, Sylvester Gray, Mark Acres -there's some past it names in there DJ, Cooper, Moncrief, and some coming names Pippen, there's Oakley and McHale [they're critical of his effort and reality versus his rep] but that's highlighting the defensive "names").

In editions after 89-92 seasons Hollander handbooks don't mention his defense (as negative or a positive) or mention him at all in the team defense section, with a single semi-exception: '89 player profile mentions he "could be a more intimidating shot-blocker" given his leaping ability.

He was fine, hustled, put up boxscores. Some highlight plays. In his best years, somewhat positive, not a standout for a starter. Some mistakes, some lateral issues, many fouls. That's my impression anyhow.