RealGM

Nate Duncan asserted on his podcast after Warriors/Celtics Game 2 that he thought GP2 may be an even better defender than his dad. I thought it was crazy at first, but the more I think about it the more I think I agree.

The Glove was obviously a great defender, he was 9x All Defense and won DPOY in 1995-1996. There's also something to be said for playing that level of defense while also shouldering a big offensive load, which The Glove did on those good Sonics teams. However, The Glove was mostly an on-ball defender, while GP2 is a more versatile defender IMO. GP2 is also really good on-ball, but is also really good as a switch defender and an off-ball defender and can even provide some rim protection. I'm not the most well-versed in advanced defensive stats, but at a glance it looks like they make a pretty good argument for GP2 (The Glove had a career 0.5 DBPM vs. GP2's career 2.6 DBPM).

What does everyone think?

Someone made a thread in April regarding GPII. This is what I said in comparison to his father.

Colbinii wrote:While his dad definitely had the accolades, I think GP2 is even better on-ball and is more versatile on-ball compared to his dad. As others have said, he does have a tendency to get lost defensively.

I wouldn't put him in the DPOY category.

Keep in mind DBPM is:

1) A Rate Statistic
2) Low correlation to defensive impact

However, The Glove was mostly an on-ball defender

From 1990-91 to 2001-02 (12 seasons) Gary Payton Sr. had more steals than anybody - not just a lot of steals, but more than anyone. You don't get a lot of steals by being just "an on-ball defender".

Also he almost always guarded the best of the oppositions' PG, SG, and SFs - pretty much every night. You don't want arguably the greatest defensive PG ever who was 6-4 switching alot, switching off his main man. You want him on the opponents' best scoring PG, SG, SF as much as possible.

And he did this night in night out for well over a decade. His kid has played less career NBA minutes in 6 seasons than his dad did in 15 separate seasons.

If you seriously think his kid is a better defender than him then I suggest you go watch Payton Sr. in a few games. You can start with the 1995-96 finals and watch Payton Sr. versus Michael Jordan.

I think it's pretty much a fact that, as it is, GP2 has more defensive impact per-minute. He also has better hands (!!!!!!), and is easily more athletic. On ball, I take him over his father any day of the week.

But (HUGE but) I'm not sure he's a better defender in a vacuum - GP never had the luxury of saving 99% of his energy for the Tony Allen role, and he's still smarter, I don't agree GP2 is better off ball actually.

kcktiny wrote:

However, The Glove was mostly an on-ball defender

From 1990-91 to 2001-02 (12 seasons) Gary Payton Sr. had more steals than anybody - not just a lot of steals, but more than anyone. You don't get a lot of steals by being just "an on-ball defender".

Also he almost always guarded the best of the oppositions' PG, SG, and SFs - pretty much every night. You don't want arguably the greatest defensive PG ever who was 6-4 switching alot, switching off his main man. You want him on the opponents' best scoring PG, SG, SF as much as possible.

And he did this night in night out for well over a decade. His kid has played less career NBA minutes in 6 seasons than his dad did in 15 separate seasons.

If you seriously think his kid is a better defender than him then I suggest you go watch Payton Sr. in a few games. You can start with the 1995-96 finals and watch Payton Sr. versus Michael Jordan.

I wondered why one would target a 12 year span. For a start it eliminates most competition because most good players ... even those who have decent longevity won't have played the full span, due to starting earlier or ending later.

In this particular instance it's to take out Blaylock who is ahead at the 11 year mark, excluding his own rookie season) and plays only 599 minutes in that final season (the 12th year of the comp). In 2003 he's losing ground to Stockton playing way less minutes.

Karl/Kloppenburg's D called for a lot of pressing (Kloppenburg literally wrote a book on it) and trapping. This worked well. It, as a defensive style, would tend to inflate steal numbers above defensive goodness levels (beating a press/trap would tend to leave a D exposed), which again isn't to say it wasn't good, or Payton wasn't good at it.

Fwiw, I would agree that he wasn't just a man defender but also [in part - but not exclusively - relating to the above] I wouldn't use those steals as a proxy for defensive goodness necessarily (if one did, one might think Eric Murdock, with a better peak, prime and career steal% than Payton, a better defender).

By 2002 it was reported by John Hollinger that Payton was being kept of quick, scoring guards - Brent Barry (not a renowned stopper) was covering them instead. Now Payton was getting on at this point but this is within the span.

I wouldn't claim to know for certain whether he guarded the best of 1-2-3 pretty much every night or not (for some of the span at least, though per the above and below I see reasons to be dubious on aspects of the claim). But making that claim with an emphasis on every, would I think require some support regarding ability to cover 3s and best player. For myself glancing at the first 4 relevant editions of the Barry Bible I see a note that he could cover 1s or 2s after his rookie year, then nothing beyond that (and they were very high on his D). Then too he reportedly didn't cover MJ for the first three games of the finals (note here too that McMillan, their other best perimeter defender was injured), again there were good reasons, to conserve his energy for offense but, when there isn't any proof given and the strength of commitment to the statement ("every" emphasized) and there are easy counter examples, one wonders.

Glove >>>>>> his son.

Karl/Kloppenburg's D called for a lot of pressing (Kloppenburg literally wrote a book on it) and trapping. This worked well. It, as a defensive style, would tend to inflate steal numbers above defensive goodness levels (beating a press/trap would tend to leave a D exposed)

What kind of nonsensical statement is this? Is not a steal great defense? You stop the opposition from scoring. Isn't that what defense is all about?

I wouldn't use those steals as a proxy for defensive goodness

Then what is "defensive goodness"? How are steals not a part of defensive goodness? Aren't steals, defensive rebounds, blocked shots, and shot defense all part of defensive goodness?

By 2002 it was reported by John Hollinger that Payton was being kept of quick, scoring guards - Brent Barry (not a renowned stopper) was covering them instead. Now Payton was getting on at this point but this is within the span.

Is this statement some sort of proof of something? Payton was 33 years of age by this time, in his 12th NBA season.

I wouldn't claim to know for certain whether he guarded the best of 1-2-3 pretty much every night or not

Perhaps if you had watched him play like many of us did you would know.

I see reasons to be dubious on aspects of the claim

Really? Based on what? I watched him play a lot and I can't think of many other players that could guard PGs, SG, and SFs, as well as he did during the time that he played.

Again, had you watched him play you would not be so dubious.

But making that claim with an emphasis on every, would I think require some support regarding ability to cover 3s and best player.

I watched him play. Did you? How's that for proof?

That and the defensive accolades he has received are more support than quoting something Hollinger said in his 12th year in the league, or that Karl/Kloppenburg's systems inflated his steal numbers. Tell us, were Stockton's and Blaylock's steal numbers inflated too? Or was it just Payton's?

The career leaders in steals are Stockton, Kidd, Jordan, Chris Paul, Payton, Cheeks, and Pippen. Aren't these all great defenders? Or can you show that some of these players' steals were actually inflated such that they were not great defenders?

For myself glancing at the first 4 relevant editions of the Barry Bible I see a note that he could cover 1s or 2s after his rookie year, then nothing beyond that (and they were very high on his D).

Well did you bother to read all that Barry/Cohen wrote about Payton in those editions (1993-94 to 1996-97)? Because if you had (or maybe you are just leaving this out for some reason) in 3 of the 4 volumes they state Payton was the best defensive PG in the league.

They rated him AAA on defense (their highest/best rating) each season. You notice any other PG those 4 years that they rated AAA on defense?

And you know why they rated him that high? Because they too watched him play - a lot.

Or are you dubious of their opinions too?

And by the way, the same Hollinger you quote above in his 2003-04 edition of the Basketball Prospectus (when Payton was already 34 years of age) states that Payton is still one of the best guards in the league at defending against taller and bigger players.

So you believe one statement he makes but not another?

kcktiny wrote:

Karl/Kloppenburg's D called for a lot of pressing (Kloppenburg literally wrote a book on it) and trapping. This worked well. It, as a defensive style, would tend to inflate steal numbers above defensive goodness levels (beating a press/trap would tend to leave a D exposed)

What kind of nonsensical statement is this? Is not a steal great defense? You stop the opposition from scoring. Isn't that what defense is all about?

You're missing the point.

A defense forces 1 steal every 10 possessions but allows 3 open lay-ups every 10 possessions isn't inherently better than a defense which forces a steal every 20 possessions but only allows 1 open lay-up every 10 possessions.

The argument/point being presented is aggressive defenses force more steals but also allows higher percentage shots [open lay-ups]. Is this defense better? We don't know for sure.

I wouldn't use those steals as a proxy for defensive goodness

Then what is "defensive goodness"? How are steals not a part of defensive goodness? Aren't steals, defensive rebounds, blocked shots, and shot defense all part of defensive goodness?

They all are, but steals at the cost of open shots isn't inherently positive. A player who gambles may produce 1 extra steal per game but what if the player is giving up multiple open lay-ups because of the gambling tendencies?

By 2002 it was reported by John Hollinger that Payton was being kept of quick, scoring guards - Brent Barry (not a renowned stopper) was covering them instead. Now Payton was getting on at this point but this is within the span.

Is this statement some sort of proof of something? Payton was 33 years of age by this time, in his 12th NBA season.

It is an informative piece to think about. Like steals, this quote by Hollinger is a data point in assessing a player.

I wouldn't claim to know for certain whether he guarded the best of 1-2-3 pretty much every night or not

Perhaps if you had watched him play like many of us did you would know.

The keen memory from 20-30 years ago isn't common.

I see reasons to be dubious on aspects of the claim

Really? Based on what? I watched him play a lot and I can't think of many other players that could guard PGs, SG, and SFs, as well as he did during the time that he played.

Again, had you watched him play you would not be so dubious.

The memory if an elephant.

But making that claim with an emphasis on every, would I think require some support regarding ability to cover 3s and best player.

I watched him play. Did you? How's that for proof?

That and the defensive accolades he has received are more support than quoting something Hollinger said in his 12th year in the league, or that Karl/Kloppenburg's systems inflated his steal numbers. Tell us, were Stockton's and Blaylock's steal numbers inflated too? Or was it just Payton's?

The career leaders in steals are Stockton, Kidd, Jordan, Chris Paul, Payton, Cheeks, and Pippen. Aren't these all great defenders? Or can you show that some of these players' steals were actually inflated such that they were not great defenders?

Jordan's were somewhat inflated due to his gambling nature.

Steals also weren't recorded until the mid-1970s in the NBA.

We also see an evolution in defense where gambling for steals is not an optimal defense [which is why we tend to see less steals now versus prior eras].

For myself glancing at the first 4 relevant editions of the Barry Bible I see a note that he could cover 1s or 2s after his rookie year, then nothing beyond that (and they were very high on his D).

Well did you bother to read all that Barry/Cohen wrote about Payton in those editions (1993-94 to 1996-97)? Because if you had (or maybe you are just leaving this out for some reason) in 3 of the 4 volumes they state Payton was the best defensive PG in the league.

They rated him AAA on defense (their highest/best rating) each season. You notice any other PG those 4 years that they rated AAA on defense?

And you know why they rated him that high? Because they too watched him play - a lot.

Or are you dubious of their opinions too?

And by the way, the same Hollinger you quote above in his 2003-04 edition of the Basketball Prospectus (when Payton was already 34 years of age) states that Payton is still one of the best guards in the league at defending against taller and bigger players.

So you believe one statement he makes but not another?

Thank you for this information. It is very informative as I do not own all the volumes.

kcktiny wrote:

Karl/Kloppenburg's D called for a lot of pressing (Kloppenburg literally wrote a book on it) and trapping. This worked well. It, as a defensive style, would tend to inflate steal numbers above defensive goodness levels (beating a press/trap would tend to leave a D exposed)

What kind of nonsensical statement is this? Is not a steal great defense? You stop the opposition from scoring. Isn't that what defense is all about?

I wouldn't use those steals as a proxy for defensive goodness

Then what is "defensive goodness"? How are steals not a part of defensive goodness? Aren't steals, defensive rebounds, blocked shots, and shot defense all part of defensive goodness?

By 2002 it was reported by John Hollinger that Payton was being kept of quick, scoring guards - Brent Barry (not a renowned stopper) was covering them instead. Now Payton was getting on at this point but this is within the span.

Is this statement some sort of proof of something? Payton was 33 years of age by this time, in his 12th NBA season.

I wouldn't claim to know for certain whether he guarded the best of 1-2-3 pretty much every night or not

Perhaps if you had watched him play like many of us did you would know.

I see reasons to be dubious on aspects of the claim

Really? Based on what? I watched him play a lot and I can't think of many other players that could guard PGs, SG, and SFs, as well as he did during the time that he played.

Again, had you watched him play you would not be so dubious.

But making that claim with an emphasis on every, would I think require some support regarding ability to cover 3s and best player.

I watched him play. Did you? How's that for proof?

That and the defensive accolades he has received are more support than quoting something Hollinger said in his 12th year in the league, or that Karl/Kloppenburg's systems inflated his steal numbers. Tell us, were Stockton's and Blaylock's steal numbers inflated too? Or was it just Payton's?

The career leaders in steals are Stockton, Kidd, Jordan, Chris Paul, Payton, Cheeks, and Pippen. Aren't these all great defenders? Or can you show that some of these players' steals were actually inflated such that they were not great defenders?

For myself glancing at the first 4 relevant editions of the Barry Bible I see a note that he could cover 1s or 2s after his rookie year, then nothing beyond that (and they were very high on his D).

Well did you bother to read all that Barry/Cohen wrote about Payton in those editions (1993-94 to 1996-97)? Because if you had (or maybe you are just leaving this out for some reason) in 3 of the 4 volumes they state Payton was the best defensive PG in the league.

They rated him AAA on defense (their highest/best rating) each season. You notice any other PG those 4 years that they rated AAA on defense?

And you know why they rated him that high? Because they too watched him play - a lot.

Or are you dubious of their opinions too?

And by the way, the same Hollinger you quote above in his 2003-04 edition of the Basketball Prospectus (when Payton was already 34 years of age) states that Payton is still one of the best guards in the league at defending against taller and bigger players.

So you believe one statement he makes but not another?

This will be an only response given the combative nature of your post and your posting history.

kcktiny wrote:

Karl/Kloppenburg's D called for a lot of pressing (Kloppenburg literally wrote a book on it) and trapping. This worked well. It, as a defensive style, would tend to inflate steal numbers above defensive goodness levels (beating a press/trap would tend to leave a D exposed)

What kind of nonsensical statement is this? Is not a steal great defense? You stop the opposition from scoring. Isn't that what defense is all about?

1) Needless hostility.
2) If the outcome is a steal it's great. There's an opportunity cost to many steal attempts leaving you out of position and/or off balance. Thus it is a value proposition wherein the net value of accruing steals depends upon not only the successes but also the costs of failed attempts. This was largely either implied or stated above.

kcktiny wrote:

I wouldn't use those steals as a proxy for defensive goodness

Then what is "defensive goodness"? How are steals not a part of defensive goodness? Aren't steals, defensive rebounds, blocked shots, and shot defense all part of defensive goodness?

They are all parts. There are also vast swathes missed by the conventional boxscore, which is why box composites do such a poor job of accounting for defense.

kcktiny wrote:

By 2002 it was reported by John Hollinger that Payton was being kept of quick, scoring guards - Brent Barry (not a renowned stopper) was covering them instead. Now Payton was getting on at this point but this is within the span.

Is this statement some sort of proof of something? Payton was 33 years of age by this time, in his 12th NBA season.

1) It suggests that your statement that ...

Also he almost always guarded the best of the oppositions' PG, SG, and SFs - pretty much every night.

... is not in fact true. A lightly regarded defender (and a 2) was put on quick guards specifically to avoid Payton being put on them.

Either you did not understand your own point or else you wrote it very unclearly. I would note here that this is in a year you cited as part of your evidence.

2) Repeating back to me that he was getting on ... why? It was you who chose to include that year in your span of evidence for him as a good defender (though as implied above you were forced into that box because a shorter span wouldn't have worked as Blaylock was a more prolific thief whilst active.

kcktiny wrote:

I wouldn't claim to know for certain whether he guarded the best of 1-2-3 pretty much every night or not

Perhaps if you had watched him play like many of us did you would know.

So why engage if you are going to assume that someone hasn't watched. Fwiw, I have watched him. But not a lot and not a lot recently and I regard my own eye test (and old memories) lightly, though I'd also be somewhat similarly inclined for any others who haven't evidence of serious work and signs of aptitude (difficult for me to judge).
Sooo

I watched him play. Did you? How's that for proof?

Yes, as outlined above, though you've already assumed otherwise.
Very poor. For reasons outlined above.

kcktiny wrote:Well did you bother to read all that Barry/Cohen wrote about Payton in those editions (1993-94 to 1996-97)? Because if you had (or maybe you are just leaving this out for some reason) in 3 of the 4 volumes they state Payton was the best defensive PG in the league.

They rated him AAA on defense (their highest/best rating) each season. You notice any other PG those 4 years that they rated AAA on defense?

And you know why they rated him that high? Because they too watched him play - a lot.

You are wrong. Firstly in that there are more than 4 editions. I don't doubt that he was very good (especially in those younger years). I never stated otherwise. I would note that the book is a collaborative process, more so than two guys in that era (or one in the Cohn only edition) watching all the games for all the teams in that era they would be reliant on their many contacts and contributing sources.

Secondly in that you seem to think that you think I'm arguing for Payton senior as a bad defender. This is a misreading of my post. Go back and you will note it urges caution on, and implicitly criticizes, the poor arguments you made but does not express an opinion on Payton as an overall defender.

Thirdly that I didn't read all of what was written about Payton in the first 4 edtions (not the ones you note). I just wasn't looking to make the argument that you think I was, because you didn't read it properly.

Fwiw, in the final 4 edtions ... yes: Mookie Blaylock. McMillan narrowly misses out, due to a AA after the '95 season. As before isolating a specific span will naturally favor the person around whom the argument is built.

kcktiny wrote:Or are you dubious of their opinions too?

I suspect most wouldn't cite sources they think are bad without giving caveats. I would tend to try to seek to avoid those that I would guess might.

I suppose I "doubt" in the sense I don't hold their opinions/reporting as an article of faith.

kcktiny wrote:And by the way, the same Hollinger you quote above in his 2003-04 edition of the Basketball Prospectus (when Payton was already 34 years of age) states that Payton is still one of the best guards in the league at defending against taller and bigger players.

So you believe one statement he makes but not another?

So why would you assume that I don't believe the latter statement. I haven't said such. Now if I were to get into the weeds ... at first glance I'd note the impact signs aren't promising for him as an overall defender (a slightly poor -1.2 NPI DRAPM https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2003-npi-rapm, though using priors hauls him up to a more solid [for a guard] 0.1). More generally, post 2000, whilst he is a boxscore (primarily offense) productive player his of negligible net impact and by 2003 is in a third straight year of posting slightly negative NPI DRAPMs (though given the degree and his position this can perhaps be read as circa neutral). But again "you believe ..." suggests either that you haven't read or haven't understood my first post and engage with those who you believe are arguing in bad faith or that you yourself are willing make up assumptions with no basis.

Fwiw, the very next sentence is "The problem is that quick guards give him fits, but the Lakers will have Kobe Bryant and Derek Fisher to bail him out in those situations." Thus at this point a source is reporting that he is better than most guards at "guarding taller and bigger players" (which - granting some wiggle room for the ambiguity of phrasing - is not their primary requirement) but very bad with a more common weapon, quick guards. This (a) suggests Payton forces you to cross match and (b) further de-legitimizes your claim that he would cover the best 1,2 or 3 "pretty much every night". Rather on a significant portion of nights he was poorly suited to a great many of the better ones and twos and likely very quick 3s too.

Per the opening, this will be my last post. You have entirely misread the post and argued strawman positions that existed only in your mind, offered little if anything engaging with the substance of what was written, though even if there were it would not seem profitable engaging with you.

One last evidence check: those Barry Bible's don't quite say that Payton is the best point defender in 3 of the last 4 editions, but two. I would assume you are counting their reporting in the 96-97 versions that he is "widely considered" such, but do not go so far as to venture support for this specific position themselves (nor simply state it explicitly as they had for 93--94 and 94-95), which isn't to say they didn't rate him highly or that what they wrote would preclude them putting him top (they just didn't do so).

I'll take the guy who limited MJ in the finals more than any other player in history while also carrying a massive offensive load. This is as no brainer as no brainer gets.

On ball and oer minute GP2 is really one of the best defenders ever, I agree he's better.
The way I rememeber him, though, GP was much better as a help defender.

Overall, we should not forget how GP was playing mudh more and also had an inportant offensive role.

___
Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

I'll take the guy who limited MJ in the finals more than any other player in history while also carrying a massive offensive load. This is as no brainer as no brainer gets.

Agreed.

The argument/point being presented is aggressive defenses force more steals but also allows higher percentage shots [open lay-ups].

This statement is based on what evidence? Can you show proof that this statement is true?

The keen memory from 20-30 years ago isn't common.

Wait a minute - having watched Gary Payton over a decade some 20-30 years ago and seeing him play great defense for a long time
somehow isn't true because it happened 2-3 decades ago?

Tell me, was Bill Russell a great defender?

Jordan's (steals) were somewhat inflated due to his gambling nature.

What is this statement supposed to mean? Jordan was all-defensive first team 9 times. He is one of the greatest defensive guards the game has ever seen. Are you trying to say he wasn't?

Steals also weren't recorded until the mid-1970s in the NBA.

Again, what is this supposed to mean? What does this have to do with whether the league career leaders in steals were great defenders?

We also see an evolution in defense where gambling for steals is not an optimal defense [which is why we tend to see less steals now versus prior eras].

Again what does this mean? Are you trying to say defenses today are better than defenses of the past? Where's the proof?

There's an opportunity cost to many steal attempts leaving you out of position and/or off balance. Thus it is a value proposition wherein the net value of accruing steals depends upon not only the successes but also the costs of failed attempts.

You can say the same thing about going for defensive rebounds or going for blocked shots. What's the difference? If you go for a defensive rebound and don't get it, or try to block a shot and don't block it, how is that any different than going for a steal and not getting it?

A lightly regarded defender (and a 2) was put on quick guards specifically to avoid Payton being put on them.

When? Clearly not anytime early in his career, or during the first decade of his career.

So why engage if you are going to assume that someone hasn't watched. Fwiw, I have watched him. But not a lot and not a lot recently

I'm not surprised.

I suppose I "doubt" in the sense I don't hold their opinions/reporting as an article of faith.

Again I'm not surprised.

So why would you assume that I don't believe the latter statement. I haven't said such. Now if I were to get into the weeds ... at first glance I'd note the impact signs aren't promising for him as an overall defender (a slightly poor -1.2 NPI DRAPM https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2003-npi-rapm, though using priors hauls him up to a more solid [for a guard] 0.1). More generally, post 2000, whilst he is a boxscore (primarily offense) productive player his of negligible net impact and by 2003 is in a third straight year of posting slightly negative NPI DRAPMs

Ah - so the truth comes out. Another Plus/Minus adherent.

So you don't value the judgement of those who watched him play at the time he played some 20-30 years ago, but you do believe a flawed calculation done by someone some 20-30 years after the fact, a someone who also - likely - did not watch him play.

Again I'm not surprised.

Rather on a significant portion of nights he was poorly suited to a great many of the better ones and twos and likely very quick 3s too.

Again - to quote you:

I have watched him. But not a lot and not a lot recently

Per the opening, this will be my last post.

Tis a shame. Debunking your selective reasoning is fun.

You have entirely misread the post and argued strawman positions that existed only in your mind, offered little if anything engaging with the substance of what was written

Engaging with you has been fun.

though even if there were it would not seem profitable engaging with you.

I have profited by engaging with you. Thank you.

kcktiny wrote:

Jordan's (steals) were somewhat inflated due to his gambling nature.

What is this statement supposed to mean? Jordan was all-defensive first team 9 times. He is one of the greatest defensive guards the game has ever seen. Are you trying to say he wasn't?

a player can gamble more often for steals (overplaying passing lanes, overreaching, etc), which results in more steals that show up in the box score ... but there is no stat that indicates all of the times that they failed to get a steal, thus giving up an advantage to the offense because of it.

Karl/Kloppenburg's D called for a lot of pressing (Kloppenburg literally wrote a book on it) and trapping. This worked well. It, as a defensive style, would tend to inflate steal numbers above defensive goodness levels (beating a press/trap would tend to leave a D exposed)

What kind of nonsensical statement is this? Is not a steal great defense? You stop the opposition from scoring. Isn't that what defense is all about?

yes, you stop the opposition from scoring on the plays that you get the steal. but you're not getting a steal on 100% of those plays. sometimes the pass gets through and there is now an advantage for the offensive team. it is a VERY simple risk/reward concept.. you can also stop a defensive from scoring without stealing the ball. forcing consistent bad shots without ever directly stealing the ball is also good defense

There's an opportunity cost to many steal attempts leaving you out of position and/or off balance. Thus it is a value proposition wherein the net value of accruing steals depends upon not only the successes but also the costs of failed attempts.

You can say the same thing about going for defensive rebounds or going for blocked shots. What's the difference? If you go for a defensive rebound and don't get it, or try to block a shot and don't block it, how is that any different than going for a steal and not getting it?

yes, you can say the same thing about going for blocked shots. i think you are now starting to realize how box score stats don't tell you everything, that is good. blocked shots only tell you about the plays in which a player was successful in blocking a shot. there is more to rim protection than just blocking shots, so ranking the best rim protectors simply by blocks would not be optimal.

We also see an evolution in defense where gambling for steals is not an optimal defense [which is why we tend to see less steals now versus prior eras].

Again what does this mean? Are you trying to say defenses today are better than defenses of the past? Where's the proof?

does your "I watched him play. Did you? How's that for proof?" rebuttal work here? curious when "I watched it." counts as valid proof and when not.

Jordan's (steals) were somewhat inflated due to his gambling nature.

What is this statement supposed to mean? Jordan was all-defensive first team 9 times. He is one of the greatest defensive guards the game has ever seen. Are you trying to say he wasn't?

what a strawman lol.

I wouldn't use those steals as a proxy for defensive goodness

Then what is "defensive goodness"? How are steals not a part of defensive goodness? Aren't steals, defensive rebounds, blocked shots, and shot defense all part of defensive goodness?

it's possible for a steal to be a positive defensive play and for ranking on steals to not be the best way to rank defensive players.

nfl analogy: it's the same way a cornerback like trevon diggs can have an aggressive, gambling playstyle that gets him a league-leading 11 INT season. no one would say that getting interceptions isn't a very positive play for a defense - but it's possible that in playing aggressively, that player gave up a lot of positive offensive plays when they weren't getting INTs and that there were better cornerbacks with far fewer INTs.