RealGM

Bill Russell is widely regarded as an MVP+ caliber player solely off the basis of his defense. He was recently voted 8th in the PC board's peaks project and rightfully so. My question is why isn't the same recognition afforded to more modern one-way defenders who are net neutrals/plus role players on offense?

I get that the context of the pre-3 point line NBA allowed for a higher overall ceiling, but the best defenders of the modern era still aren't that much less valuable than the best offensive players. GOAT caliber defensive seasons are surely harder to come by, but in most impact data sets these seasons trail the best offensive seasons only by about one point. I wouldn't include someone like Ben Wallace, since his negative offensive value ate into his overall impact, but there have been modern examples of mostly one-way defenders—Dikembe Mutombo, post-injury Kevin Garnett, late career David Robinson and Tim Duncan, Rudy Gobert (RS), Draymond Green (PS)—who have posted impact numbers that rival Steph Curry or Kobe Bryant at the peak of their powers.

Should we not consider players of this mold MVP caliber even in the modern NBA?

Wrong board man. There are posters here with MJ outside their top 5 because he lacks rim protection.

Dutchball97 wrote:Wrong board man. There are posters here with MJ outside their top 5 because he lacks rim protection.

Hey man, as one of those posters, it's more of a longevity thing.

But anywho, outside of the board, yeah I think defense is generally rated poorly (help defense underrated and man defense overrated is how I'd summarize). On the board, I think it's fairly accurately valued, though obviously still some disagreements from individuals and on different players, but broadly it feels pretty valued (which it should be, imo).

eminence wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:Wrong board man. There are posters here with MJ outside their top 5 because he lacks rim protection.

Hey man, as one of those posters, it's more of a longevity thing.

But anywho, outside of the board, yeah I think defense is generally rated poorly (help defense underrated and man defense overrated is how I'd summarize). On the board, I think it's fairly accurately valued, though obviously still some disagreements from individuals and on different players, but broadly it feels pretty valued (which it should be, imo).

Don't take it as a dig at you because criticizing the validity of someone's list is not something I do anymore, if people have MJ outside their top 100 because they see him as a bum for retiring twice mid-career it's their right and if someone has MJ as the undisputed #1 with nobody else in the same tier I'll extend the same courtesy. I was just using it as an example that if there is a place that doesn't value big man defense/rim protection then it certainly isn't here.

If you don't mind me asking, if longevity is the main reason for you having MJ 6th then why isn't Wilt above both MJ and Russell? Russell and MJ have nearly identical minutes played over their career and both were incredibly impactful so someone putting Russell one spot over MJ isn't strange to me but I don't really see the logic in them being behind Duncan and KG but above Wilt. Now I'm not saying some gotcha like "if longevity is so important to you why aren't Elvin Hayes and John Stockton in your top 10" because that's dumb but in terms of impact is there really a big enough difference between Duncan/KG and Wilt to be able to squeeze MJ and Russell inbetween them when Duncan, KG and Wilt also have similar minutes played? Not like Wilt fell off hard at any point either.

Dutchball97 wrote:

eminence wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:Wrong board man. There are posters here with MJ outside their top 5 because he lacks rim protection.

Hey man, as one of those posters, it's more of a longevity thing.

But anywho, outside of the board, yeah I think defense is generally rated poorly (help defense underrated and man defense overrated is how I'd summarize). On the board, I think it's fairly accurately valued, though obviously still some disagreements from individuals and on different players, but broadly it feels pretty valued (which it should be, imo).

Don't take it as a dig at you because criticizing the validity of someone's list is not something I do anymore, if people have MJ outside their top 100 because they see him as a bum for retiring twice mid-career it's their right and if someone has MJ as the undisputed #1 with nobody else in the same tier I'll extend the same courtesy. I was just using it as an example that if there is a place that doesn't value big man defense/rim protection then it certainly isn't here.

If you don't mind me asking, if longevity is the main reason for you having MJ 6th then why isn't Wilt above both MJ and Russell? Russell and MJ have nearly identical minutes played over their career and both were incredibly impactful so someone putting Russell one spot over MJ isn't strange to me but I don't really see the logic in them being behind Duncan and KG but above Wilt. Now I'm not saying some gotcha like "if longevity is so important to you why aren't Elvin Hayes and John Stockton in your top 10" because that's dumb but in terms of impact is there really a big enough difference between Duncan/KG and Wilt to be able to squeeze MJ and Russell inbetween them when Duncan, KG and Wilt also have similar minutes played? Not like Wilt fell off hard at any point either.

No worries, I took it in a joking manner

Good question on Wilt - 1) I could see him above MJ under my criteria 2) I tend to lean more towards seasons/games as opposed to minutes for measuring longevity (obviously minutes matter), so I have Wilt having a marginal longevity edge on Russell (13 main seasons for each, plus '70 for Wilt) and a smaller one on MJ (11 full seasons and then 2 '70 type ones in '86/'95, let's not talk too much about the Wizards years, though I've generally found I like that version of MJ slightly more than others do). KG/Duncan I both have in the higher teens for heavily contributing season, similar for KAJ/LeBron at this point ('97-'13 and '98-'15 for KG/Duncan as shorthand).

eminence wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:

eminence wrote:
Hey man, as one of those posters, it's more of a longevity thing.

But anywho, outside of the board, yeah I think defense is generally rated poorly (help defense underrated and man defense overrated is how I'd summarize). On the board, I think it's fairly accurately valued, though obviously still some disagreements from individuals and on different players, but broadly it feels pretty valued (which it should be, imo).

Don't take it as a dig at you because criticizing the validity of someone's list is not something I do anymore, if people have MJ outside their top 100 because they see him as a bum for retiring twice mid-career it's their right and if someone has MJ as the undisputed #1 with nobody else in the same tier I'll extend the same courtesy. I was just using it as an example that if there is a place that doesn't value big man defense/rim protection then it certainly isn't here.

If you don't mind me asking, if longevity is the main reason for you having MJ 6th then why isn't Wilt above both MJ and Russell? Russell and MJ have nearly identical minutes played over their career and both were incredibly impactful so someone putting Russell one spot over MJ isn't strange to me but I don't really see the logic in them being behind Duncan and KG but above Wilt. Now I'm not saying some gotcha like "if longevity is so important to you why aren't Elvin Hayes and John Stockton in your top 10" because that's dumb but in terms of impact is there really a big enough difference between Duncan/KG and Wilt to be able to squeeze MJ and Russell inbetween them when Duncan, KG and Wilt also have similar minutes played? Not like Wilt fell off hard at any point either.

No worries, I took it in a joking manner

Good question on Wilt - 1) I could see him above MJ under my criteria 2) I tend to lean more towards seasons/games as opposed to minutes for measuring longevity (obviously minutes matter), so I have Wilt having a marginal longevity edge on Russell (13 main seasons for each, plus '70 for Wilt) and a smaller one on MJ (11 full seasons and then 2 '70 type ones in '86/'95, let's not talk too much about the Wizards years, though I've generally found I like that version of MJ slightly more than others do). KG/Duncan I both have in the higher teens for heavily contributing season, similar for KAJ/LeBron at this point ('97-'13 and '98-'15 for KG/Duncan as shorthand).

Oooh. Spicy. Tell me more

OhayoKD wrote:

eminence wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:
Don't take it as a dig at you because criticizing the validity of someone's list is not something I do anymore, if people have MJ outside their top 100 because they see him as a bum for retiring twice mid-career it's their right and if someone has MJ as the undisputed #1 with nobody else in the same tier I'll extend the same courtesy. I was just using it as an example that if there is a place that doesn't value big man defense/rim protection then it certainly isn't here.

If you don't mind me asking, if longevity is the main reason for you having MJ 6th then why isn't Wilt above both MJ and Russell? Russell and MJ have nearly identical minutes played over their career and both were incredibly impactful so someone putting Russell one spot over MJ isn't strange to me but I don't really see the logic in them being behind Duncan and KG but above Wilt. Now I'm not saying some gotcha like "if longevity is so important to you why aren't Elvin Hayes and John Stockton in your top 10" because that's dumb but in terms of impact is there really a big enough difference between Duncan/KG and Wilt to be able to squeeze MJ and Russell inbetween them when Duncan, KG and Wilt also have similar minutes played? Not like Wilt fell off hard at any point either.

No worries, I took it in a joking manner

Good question on Wilt - 1) I could see him above MJ under my criteria 2) I tend to lean more towards seasons/games as opposed to minutes for measuring longevity (obviously minutes matter), so I have Wilt having a marginal longevity edge on Russell (13 main seasons for each, plus '70 for Wilt) and a smaller one on MJ (11 full seasons and then 2 '70 type ones in '86/'95, let's not talk too much about the Wizards years, though I've generally found I like that version of MJ slightly more than others do). KG/Duncan I both have in the higher teens for heavily contributing season, similar for KAJ/LeBron at this point ('97-'13 and '98-'15 for KG/Duncan as shorthand).

Oooh. Spicy. Tell me more

Those Wizards seasons are usually disregarded completely but anyone using a longevity-heavy approach really shouldn't dismiss them so easily when he was still a positive contributor both years.

I have been vocal about it for a long time. Yes, players like Mutombo or Thurmond are absolutely underrated. They were regualry top 10 players in the league during their primes, yet a lot of people view them as role players.

It's always easier to get credit for what you did rather than what you prevented others from doing.

Dutchball97 wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

eminence wrote:
No worries, I took it in a joking manner

Good question on Wilt - 1) I could see him above MJ under my criteria 2) I tend to lean more towards seasons/games as opposed to minutes for measuring longevity (obviously minutes matter), so I have Wilt having a marginal longevity edge on Russell (13 main seasons for each, plus '70 for Wilt) and a smaller one on MJ (11 full seasons and then 2 '70 type ones in '86/'95, let's not talk too much about the Wizards years, though I've generally found I like that version of MJ slightly more than others do). KG/Duncan I both have in the higher teens for heavily contributing season, similar for KAJ/LeBron at this point ('97-'13 and '98-'15 for KG/Duncan as shorthand).

Oooh. Spicy. Tell me more

Those Wizards seasons are usually disregarded completely but anyone using a longevity-heavy approach really shouldn't dismiss them so easily when he was still a positive contributor both years.

Was he really? On the court he might have been more valuable but if the reports of his destroying the #1 pick in the whole draft Kwame Brown's confidence and getting the team to trade Rip Hamilton for a washed Jerry Stackhouse, I think he was actually a negative for the franchise. He set back the rebuild seriously and didn't push the team successfully anywhere. The front office liked him because he pushed ticket sales but as a fan, I strongly wished he had never decided to come back.

As James Harden iirc once said in one of the Rico Hines summer run videos, if you're the best defender on the team you're always gonna get minutes. I'm sure it doesn't get enough respect from most fans but teams definitely see it

penbeast0 wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Oooh. Spicy. Tell me more

Those Wizards seasons are usually disregarded completely but anyone using a longevity-heavy approach really shouldn't dismiss them so easily when he was still a positive contributor both years.

Was he really? On the court he might have been more valuable but if the reports of his destroying the #1 pick in the whole draft Kwame Brown's confidence and getting the team to trade Rip Hamilton for a washed Jerry Stackhouse, I think he was actually a negative for the franchise. He set back the rebuild seriously and didn't push the team successfully anywhere. The front office liked him because he pushed ticket sales but as a fan, I strongly wished he had never decided to come back.

Yeah purely talking about on court play here.

Dutchball97 wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:
Those Wizards seasons are usually disregarded completely but anyone using a longevity-heavy approach really shouldn't dismiss them so easily when he was still a positive contributor both years.

Was he really? On the court he might have been more valuable but if the reports of his destroying the #1 pick in the whole draft Kwame Brown's confidence and getting the team to trade Rip Hamilton for a washed Jerry Stackhouse, I think he was actually a negative for the franchise. He set back the rebuild seriously and didn't push the team successfully anywhere. The front office liked him because he pushed ticket sales but as a fan, I strongly wished he had never decided to come back.

Yeah purely talking about on court play here.

Agreeing there. I think MJ showed enough to believe he could've been a useful player at that point, but fully agree, not actually a good thing for the Wizards that he joined the team (I mean, maybe financially it was good, I don't know, never looked into it).

gobert chokin prob didnt help

70sFan wrote:I have been vocal about it for a long time. Yes, players like Mutombo or Thurmond are absolutely underrated. They were regualry top 10 players in the league during their primes, yet a lot of people view them as role players.

They are the counter part of Gilbert Arenas and John Wall, on particular good years Dame. Your franchise is going nowhere if they are the best players on your roster.

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:I have been vocal about it for a long time. Yes, players like Mutombo or Thurmond are absolutely underrated. They were regualry top 10 players in the league during their primes, yet a lot of people view them as role players.

They are the counter part of Gilbert Arenas and John Wall, on particular good years Dame. Your franchise is going nowhere if they are the best players on your roster.

Except they actually did better, but nice try.

For those who cares about context, best teams led by mentioned players (at least 30 mpg and 60 games played):

John Wall:

2017: 49 wins, +1.4 SRS, lost in 2nd round
2015: 46 wins, +0.2 SRS, lost in 2nd round
2014: 44 wins, +0.5 SRS, lost in 2nd round

Gilbert Arenas:

2005: 45 wins, -0.7 SRS, lost in 2nd round
2006: 42 wins, +1.6 SRS, lost in 1st round
2007: 41 wins, -0.8 SRS, lost in 1st round

Nate Thurmond:

1967: 44 wins, +2.6 SRS, lost in the finals
1973: 47 wins, +3.1 SRS, lost in WCF
1972: 51 wins, +0.9 SRS, lost in 2nd round

Dikembe Mutombo:

1997: 56 wins, +5.5 SRS, lost in 2nd round
1999: 51 wins (pace), +3.9 SRS, lost in 2nd round
1994: 42 wins, +1.5 SRS, lost in 2nd round

Thurmond and Mutombo 3rd best seasons in terms of team success are better than Wall's and Arenas best ones.

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:I have been vocal about it for a long time. Yes, players like Mutombo or Thurmond are absolutely underrated. They were regualry top 10 players in the league during their primes, yet a lot of people view them as role players.

They are the counter part of Gilbert Arenas and John Wall, on particular good years Dame. Your franchise is going nowhere if they are the best players on your roster.

Except they actually did better, but nice try.

It's amazing how many of these theories don't line-up with reality

I don't think Mutombo and Thurmond are significantly (if any) worse than Isiah Thomas, and he had 2 (almost 3) straight rings.
Ben Wallace also had almost 2 straight rings.

Once you're at their level you really only require a smart coach with a well-built team.

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:I have been vocal about it for a long time. Yes, players like Mutombo or Thurmond are absolutely underrated. They were regualry top 10 players in the league during their primes, yet a lot of people view them as role players.

They are the counter part of Gilbert Arenas and John Wall, on particular good years Dame. Your franchise is going nowhere if they are the best players on your roster.

Except they actually did better, but nice try.

For those who cares about context, best teams led by mentioned players (at least 30 mpg and 60 games played):

John Wall:

2017: 49 wins, +1.4 SRS, lost in 2nd round
2015: 46 wins, +0.2 SRS, lost in 2nd round
2014: 44 wins, +0.5 SRS, lost in 2nd round

Gilbert Arenas:

2005: 45 wins, -0.7 SRS, lost in 2nd round
2006: 42 wins, +1.6 SRS, lost in 1st round
2007: 41 wins, -0.8 SRS, lost in 1st round

Nate Thurmond:

1967: 44 wins, +2.6 SRS, lost in the finals
1973: 47 wins, +3.1 SRS, lost in WCF
1972: 51 wins, +0.9 SRS, lost in 2nd round

Dikembe Mutombo:

1997: 56 wins, +5.5 SRS, lost in 2nd round
1999: 51 wins (pace), +3.9 SRS, lost in 2nd round
1994: 42 wins, +1.5 SRS, lost in 2nd round

Thurmond and Mutombo 3rd best seasons in terms of team success are better than Wall's and Arenas best ones.

Nice try, but you just proved 4x DPOY Mutombo (~top 10 ATGvdefender) with a long career had a ceiling comparable to injury-plagued Gilbert Arenas, who was not even the best offensive players in his generation.

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:
They are the counter part of Gilbert Arenas and John Wall, on particular good years Dame. Your franchise is going nowhere if they are the best players on your roster.

Except they actually did better, but nice try.

For those who cares about context, best teams led by mentioned players (at least 30 mpg and 60 games played):

John Wall:

2017: 49 wins, +1.4 SRS, lost in 2nd round
2015: 46 wins, +0.2 SRS, lost in 2nd round
2014: 44 wins, +0.5 SRS, lost in 2nd round

Gilbert Arenas:

2005: 45 wins, -0.7 SRS, lost in 2nd round
2006: 42 wins, +1.6 SRS, lost in 1st round
2007: 41 wins, -0.8 SRS, lost in 1st round

Nate Thurmond:

1967: 44 wins, +2.6 SRS, lost in the finals
1973: 47 wins, +3.1 SRS, lost in WCF
1972: 51 wins, +0.9 SRS, lost in 2nd round

Dikembe Mutombo:

1997: 56 wins, +5.5 SRS, lost in 2nd round
1999: 51 wins (pace), +3.9 SRS, lost in 2nd round
1994: 42 wins, +1.5 SRS, lost in 2nd round

Thurmond and Mutombo 3rd best seasons in terms of team success are better than Wall's and Arenas best ones.

Nice try, but you just proved 4x DPOY Mutombo (~top 10 ATGvdefender) with a long career had a ceiling comparable to injury-plagued Gilbert Arenas, who was not even the best offensive players in his generation.

Tell me how I proved that when these numbers literally shows the opposite. Note that I didn't even include 2001 Sixers either.