RealGM

Defense only how would you rank these players from 1-4?

Probably…

KG
Duncan
Wilt
Thurmond

Peak

Thurmond
Wilt
KG
Duncan

Duncan
KG
Wilt
Thurmond

Least sure on KG vs Wilt. Not high on Thurmonds team D relative to other all-timers.

Duncan
KG
Wilt
Thurmond

Wilt had some lateral issues defensively which Duncan/KG had less of [more so KG but I also like Duncan's mobility over Wilt]

Thurmond isn't in the same ATG Tier for me as the other 3.

Peak or career?

Colbinii wrote:Thurmond isn't in the same ATG Tier for me as the other 3.

eminence wrote:Not high on Thurmonds team D relative to other all-timers.

Care to elaborate?

70sFan wrote:Peak or career?

Sorry should’ve clarified I’m talking about Peak wise

Peak wise, Wilt carried more offensive load than Duncan then KG and then Thurmond. With that, I probably go with Duncan>Wilt=KG>Thurmond

dygaction wrote:Peak wise, Wilt carried more offensive load than Duncan then KG and then Thurmond. With that, I probably go with Duncan>Wilt=KG>Thurmond

Unless you only mean scoring peak KG had at least equal and probably slightly greater offensive load than Duncan.

And for me ‘67 was Wilts peak, so I don’t really see his edge there in offensive load. Obviously much higher earlier.

Wilt's post-season FG% allowed vs centers

59-60:

Kerr regular season FG% against the league: 39.2
Kerr against Wilt in the playoffs: .29.4

Dierking regular season FG%: .36.5
Dierking vs Wilt in the post-season: .33.3

Russell regular season: .46.7
Russell vs. Wilt in the post-season: .44.6

60-61:

Kerr regular season: .39.7
Kerr vs Wilt: .32.1

Halbrook regular season: .33.5
Halbrook vs Wilt: .38.7

61-62:

Kerr regular season: .44.3
Kerr vs. Wilt: .37.6

Russell regular season: .45.7
Russell vs Wilt: .39.9

63-64:

Beaty regular season: .44.4
Beaty vs. Wilt: .52.0

Russell regular season: .43.3
Russell vs. Wilt: .38.6

64-65:

Embry regular season: .45.6
Embry vs Wilt .43.8

Russell regular season: .43.8
Russell vs. Wilt 44.6

65-66:

Russell regular season: .41.5
Russell vs. Wilt: .42.4

66-67:

Dierking regular season: .39.9
Dierking vs Wilt: .42.7

Russell regular season: .45.4
Russell vs. Wilt: .35.8

Thurmond regular season: .43.7
Thurmond vs. Wilt: .34.3

67-68:

Bellamy regular season: .54.1
Bellamy vs. Wilt: .42.1

Russell regular season: .42.5
Russell vs. Wilt: .44.0

68-69:

Thurmond regular season: .41.0
Thurmond vs Wilt: .39.2

Beaty regular season: .47.0
Beaty vs. Wilt: .38.3

Russell regular season: .43.3
Russell vs. Wilt: .39.7

69-70:

Walk regular season: .47.0
Walk vs Wilt: .39.5

Fox regular season: .52.4
Fox vs Wilt: .36.2

Bellamy regular season: .52.3
Bellamy vs Wilt: .45.6

Reed regular season: .50.7
Reed vs Wilt: .48.3

70-71:

Boerwinkle regular season: .48.5
Boerwinkle vs Wilt: .46.3

Fox regular season: .45.8
Fox vs Wilt: .43.4

Kareem regular season: .57.7
Kareem vs Wilt: .48.1

71-72:

Ray regular season: .49.9
Ray vs Wilt: .52.9

Kareem regular season: .57.4
Kareem vs Wilt: .45.7

Lucas regular season: .51.2
Lucas vs Wilt: .50.0

72-73:

Awtry regular season: .48.0 Awtry
vs Wilt: .54.2

Thurmond regular season: .44.6
Thurmond vs Wilt: .37.3

Reed regular season: .47.4
Reed vs Wilt: .49.3

I cannot see how the characteristics of the 60s only apply to Bill Russell in terms of the ceilings of possible impact on defense.

Much less when i.e. Thurmond just... apparently happened to dry any center he touched and popped higher defensive WOWY scores than Russell.

eminence wrote:

dygaction wrote:Peak wise, Wilt carried more offensive load than Duncan then KG and then Thurmond. With that, I probably go with Duncan>Wilt=KG>Thurmond

Unless you only mean scoring peak KG had at least equal and probably slightly greater offensive load than Duncan.

And for me ‘67 was Wilts peak, so I don’t really see his edge there in offensive load. Obviously much higher earlier.

Scoring peak KG was not his defensive peak. I have to hand out the trophy with results to justify, which would be 2008.
67 Wilt was leading the team with scoring @.68FG% and assists, not to say how many of 24.2rpg are offensive rebounds.

In an era where individual defenders were clearly capable of having absolutely enormous individual impact on team defense (Russell year after year after year), Thurmond was thoroughly underwhelming, topping out with -3 defenses in an era where pretty much every other relevant defensive big man found their way onto -5/-6 defenses at some point.

eminence wrote:In an era where individual defenders were clearly capable of having absolutely enormous individual impact on team defense (Russell year after year after year), Thurmond was thoroughly underwhelming, topping out with -3 defenses in an era where pretty much every other relevant defensive big man found their way onto -5/-6 defenses at some point.

Not really a fair characterisation considering his peak defensive years were regularly derailed by injury.

AEnigma wrote:

ThaRegul8r wrote:Feb. 10, 1967, Thurmond fractured two bones in his left hand during the second quarter of a 137-136 double overtime loss to Boston (The Free Lance-Star, Feb. 11, 1967). “If Thurmond is out for six weeks, he could miss one or two playoff games. But if he misses eight weeks, his teammates might join him on the sidelines because of elimination.”

Lodi News-Sentinel, March 15, 1967

[i]The San Francisco Warriors clinched the Western Division regular season championship nine days ago, but it’s doubtful if they get anywhere when the National Basketball Association playoffs begin next week.

The combination of numerous injuries and erratic performances by those in good shape have resulted in a flock of defeats. The San Franciscans have lost nine of their last 11 contests and often looked like the worst team in the Western Division rather than the title winner.

The Warriors began to struggle when 6 ft. 11 in. center Nate Thurmond broke his hand against Boston Feb. 10. Thurmond is back but unless he’s in top shape for the playoffs, a doubtful prospect, the San Francisco pros will have a tough time beating anyone.

Elgee wrote:[1967] DRtg

Code: Select all

1.  Boston        91.2
2.  San Francisco 92.9
3.  Detroit       94.6
4.  Chicago       94.8
5.  Philadelphia  95.1
LEAGUE AVG.       96.1
6.  Los Angeles   97.3
7.  St. Louis     97.6
8.  Baltimore     98.2
9.  Cincinnati    98.8
10. New York      100.9

Ran the +/- for [1967] Thurmond:
w/out Thurmond - 119.1 ppg 126.6 opp ppg
with Thurmond - 123.2 ppg 117.8 opp ppg
That's a monstrous +12.9. It should be noted that the number is exaggerated by a pretty difficult schedule (SRS 1.13, 9H 6A).

Doing some rudimentary (i.e. no real SRS or even MOV analysis) WOWY work of my own…
1967: 38-26 with (3-0 with no Barry), 6-11 without (all with Barry in)
1968 (Barry gone): 32-19 with, 9-20 without
1969: 38-33 with, 3-8 without
1970: 21-21 with, 9-31 without
OVERALL 1967-70: 46.5-win pace with, 23-win pace without

AEnigma wrote:

eminence wrote:In an era where individual defenders were clearly capable of having absolutely enormous individual impact on team defense (Russell year after year after year), Thurmond was thoroughly underwhelming, topping out with -3 defenses in an era where pretty much every other relevant defensive big man found their way onto -5/-6 defenses at some point.

Not really a fair characterisation considering his peak defensive years were regularly derailed by injury.

AEnigma wrote:

ThaRegul8r wrote:Feb. 10, 1967, Thurmond fractured two bones in his left hand during the second quarter of a 137-136 double overtime loss to Boston (The Free Lance-Star, Feb. 11, 1967). “If Thurmond is out for six weeks, he could miss one or two playoff games. But if he misses eight weeks, his teammates might join him on the sidelines because of elimination.”

Lodi News-Sentinel, March 15, 1967

[i]The San Francisco Warriors clinched the Western Division regular season championship nine days ago, but it’s doubtful if they get anywhere when the National Basketball Association playoffs begin next week.

The combination of numerous injuries and erratic performances by those in good shape have resulted in a flock of defeats. The San Franciscans have lost nine of their last 11 contests and often looked like the worst team in the Western Division rather than the title winner.

The Warriors began to struggle when 6 ft. 11 in. center Nate Thurmond broke his hand against Boston Feb. 10. Thurmond is back but unless he’s in top shape for the playoffs, a doubtful prospect, the San Francisco pros will have a tough time beating anyone.

Elgee wrote:[1967] DRtg

Code: Select all

1.  Boston        91.2
2.  San Francisco 92.9
3.  Detroit       94.6
4.  Chicago       94.8
5.  Philadelphia  95.1
LEAGUE AVG.       96.1
6.  Los Angeles   97.3
7.  St. Louis     97.6
8.  Baltimore     98.2
9.  Cincinnati    98.8
10. New York      100.9

Ran the +/- for [1967] Thurmond:
w/out Thurmond - 119.1 ppg 126.6 opp ppg
with Thurmond - 123.2 ppg 117.8 opp ppg
That's a monstrous +12.9. It should be noted that the number is exaggerated by a pretty difficult schedule (SRS 1.13, 9H 6A).

Doing some rudimentary (i.e. no real SRS or even MOV analysis) WOWY work of my own…
1967: 38-26 with (3-0 with no Barry), 6-11 without (all with Barry in)
1968 (Barry gone): 32-19 with, 9-20 without
1969: 38-33 with, 3-8 without
1970: 21-21 with, 9-31 without
OVERALL 1967-70: 46.5-win pace with, 23-win pace without

I'm roughly familiar with the numbers (though there are two games missing from '68? - both wins without Thurmond). They're certainly impressive enough, but the comp here is damn tough.

How do his numbers there compare to Wests WOWY numbers from his prime (the other era star to consistently miss time)?

Russell/Wilt were veritable ironmen and have no real relative comparison. Russell in particular has nothing remotely comparable with him missing less than 30 total RS games after his rookie season, spread out pretty evenly over the next 12 years.

I've talked about this before but we don't have very good defensive metrics to make a ranking with any kind of confidence. I find this exercise to be more or less impossible because one has to rely on eye test and the human brain cannot assess the quality of defense with this sort of granularity to separate a group of four elite big man defenders.

Djoker wrote:I've talked about this before but we don't have very good defensive metrics to make a ranking with any kind of confidence. I find this exercise to be more or less impossible because one has to rely on eye test and the human brain cannot assess the quality of defense with this sort of granularity to separate a group of four elite big man defenders.

That's why you have to analyze as much footage as possible. I've been doing that for the last two years (with mixed consistency unfortunately) and I hope to get a solid sight at the differences between the greatest defenders ever.

eminence wrote:In an era where individual defenders were clearly capable of having absolutely enormous individual impact on team defense (Russell year after year after year), Thurmond was thoroughly underwhelming, topping out with -3 defenses in an era where pretty much every other relevant defensive big man found their way onto -5/-6 defenses at some point.

In an era where Russell played with multiple All-D caliber players, Thurmond played with *checks notes* uh yeah. Jim Barnett maybe?

For career you can't go against Duncan with how consistently good the Spurs were on defense for his entire career. Only Russell and Hakeem had comparable impact on that end imo.

Wilt would be second here based on his consistency as well. I'm not as high on his defensive peak but but I do see a pretty clear advantage over Thurmond and KG in terms of year to year defensive results.

Thurmond had Wilt next to him to do the heavy lifting early on, then had a couple very strong years in the mid-late 60s before falling off quite early on compared to the others. With KG I don't see his Minny run as all-time defensive level although his peak with the Celtics is arguably the highest here.

So career:
Duncan
Wilt
KG
Thurmond

Peak:
KG
Duncan
Thurmond
Wilt