RealGM

Those players are usually not on the GOAT defensive teams as they often were even more so their best offensive options, but what if each and every of them are not required to be great offensively when they can focus entirely on defense? Do they have the GOAT defense potential?
C: Wilt
PF: Giannis
SF: LeBron
SG: Jordan
PG: CP3

Wilt is not, despite what people (including Russell) have said, ever up to Russ's level even when he WAS focused on defense. His mindset was (a) parking himself under the basket to stop post scoring and drivers and (b) intimidation. Russell's style worked better defensively because (a) he was intimidating midrange shooters as well, they would pull up short of their sweet spots for fear of him appearing suddenly and embarassing them, and (b) he mastered the "soft block" where he would keep the ball in play and even tip it to teammates rather than swatting it into the stands. Russell also was a pest against post passing, semi-fronting his man and tipping away entry passes, only Hakeem and DRob seem to adapt this style defensively that I have noticed. He also seemed more into the mental aspect of the game.

The other one that is unlikely to have that monster an impact defensively even focused mainly on defense is Paul. Like Wilt, Paul is a great defender, but just not likely to have the impact of a Jason Kidd or Walt Frazier. With Paul, it's his size; Kidd and Frazier were big guards who impacted were very switchable, could defense post-ups, and were good rebounders (in Kidd's case, a great rebounder for a PG). Paul's size limits what he can do a bit.

(Hunching down and waiting for Owly to come in and pin my ears back with evidence for making too strong an argument.)

dygaction wrote:Those players are usually not on the GOAT defensive teams as they often were even more so their best offensive options, but what if each and every of them are not required to be great offensively when they can focus entirely on defense? Do they have the GOAT defense potential?
C: Wilt
PF: Giannis
SF: LeBron
SG: Jordan
PG: CP3

C: Russell/Hakeem
PF:KG
SF: Dray
SG: Kawhi/Pippen
PG: Tony Allen

Giannis underrated on defense though, DPOY giannis had impact similar to Boston KG iirc on that end altho I may be tripping

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

dygaction wrote:Those players are usually not on the GOAT defensive teams as they often were even more so their best offensive options, but what if each and every of them are not required to be great offensively when they can focus entirely on defense? Do they have the GOAT defense potential?
C: Wilt
PF: Giannis
SF: LeBron
SG: Jordan
PG: CP3

C: Russell/Hakeem
PF:KG
SF: Dray
SG: Kawhi/Pippen
PG: Tony Allen

Giannis underrated on defense though, DPOY giannis had impact similar to Boston KG iirc on that end altho I may be tripping

Would you mind elaborating? While Giannis is nothing short of remarkable defensively when keyed in - I believe some +/- and team signals have Boston KG as the most valuable player in data-ball.

dygaction wrote:Those players are usually not on the GOAT defensive teams as they often were even more so their best offensive options, but what if each and every of them are not required to be great offensively when they can focus entirely on defense? Do they have the GOAT defense potential?
C: Wilt
PF: Giannis
SF: LeBron
SG: Jordan
PG: CP3

A counter lineup I’ll try to make by the same logic

Walt Frazier
Jerry West
Kawhi Leonard (17)
Kevin Garnett
Hakeem Olajuwon

rk2023 wrote:

dygaction wrote:Those players are usually not on the GOAT defensive teams as they often were even more so their best offensive options, but what if each and every of them are not required to be great offensively when they can focus entirely on defense? Do they have the GOAT defense potential?
C: Wilt
PF: Giannis
SF: LeBron
SG: Jordan
PG: CP3

A counter lineup I’ll try to make by the same logic

Walt Frazier
Jerry West
Kawhi Leonard (17)
Kevin Garnett
Hakeem Olajuwon

Do you mean they could all focus on O by saving the defensive effort? There is still one ball so I am not sure how much O you can gain by giving up D. Not like you try harder and the ball goes in at a higher rate

dygaction wrote:

rk2023 wrote:

dygaction wrote:Those players are usually not on the GOAT defensive teams as they often were even more so their best offensive options, but what if each and every of them are not required to be great offensively when they can focus entirely on defense? Do they have the GOAT defense potential?
C: Wilt
PF: Giannis
SF: LeBron
SG: Jordan
PG: CP3

A counter lineup I’ll try to make by the same logic

Walt Frazier
Jerry West
Kawhi Leonard (17)
Kevin Garnett
Hakeem Olajuwon

Do you mean they could all focus on O by saving the defensive effort? There is still one ball so I am not sure how much O you can gain by giving up D. Not like you try harder and the ball goes in at a higher rate

I think I worded it wrong / somewhat misleadingly. I am trying to mimic the same logic of players who were offensive leads, while being stellar defenders - where the team has potential to be the GOAT defense. I didn’t mean “counter” as an inverse the the original prompt. This would be my personal lineup entry in this fun exercise.

Wilt is not, despite what people (including Russell) have said, ever up to Russ's level even when he WAS focused on defense. His mindset was (a) parking himself under the basket to stop post scoring and drivers and (b) intimidation.

What a bunch of sheer nonsense.

Why do all the Russell acolytes feel the need to have to put down the defensive effort of other players - like Chamberlain and Thurmond - just to say how actually good defensively Russell was? Watch a lot of Chamberlain have you?

Chamberlain, especially when young, was all over the floor on defense, and could chase down the best of them. Try watching some video of him, and not just some 3 minute snippet.

Russell was named to the all-defensive 1st team in 1968-69 (the first year the league named this team) when he was the age of 35, which was also his last year in the league. Chamberlain was named to the all-defensive 1st team in both 1971-72 and 1972-73 at the ages of 35 and 36, his last years in the league.

They are two of the absolute greatest defenders the league has ever seen.

Why do you feel the need to summarize the 14 year career (and 1000+ games) of clearly one of the league's greatest defenders with that statement?

Here, you can educate yourself. There's over an hour of video of Chamberlain here. Let's see how much you actually watch:

kcktiny wrote:

Wilt is not, despite what people (including Russell) have said, ever up to Russ's level even when he WAS focused on defense. His mindset was (a) parking himself under the basket to stop post scoring and drivers and (b) intimidation.

What a bunch of sheer nonsense.

Why do all the Russell acolytes feel the need to have to put down the defensive effort of other players - like Chamberlain and Thurmond - just to say how actually good defensively Russell was? Watch a lot of Chamberlain have you?

Chamberlain, especially when young, was all over the floor on defense, and could chase down the best of them. Try watching some video of him, and not just some 3 minute snippet.

Russell was named to the all-defensive 1st team in 1968-69 (the first year the league named this team) when he was the age of 35, which was also his last year in the league. Chamberlain was named to the all-defensive 1st team in both 1971-72 and 1972-73 at the ages of 35 and 36, his last years in the league.

They are two of the absolute greatest defenders the league has ever seen.

Why do you feel the need to summarize the 14 year career (and 1000+ games) of clearly one of the league's greatest defenders with that statement?

Here, you can educate yourself. There's over an hour of video of Chamberlain here. Let's see how much you actually watch:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

There's no need to be up in arms over such a statement because it, for one, is literally true and, secondly, isn't a knack at Chamberlain for anybody who understands the nuances of defense then vs. now.

At their very bests and considering both era-specific value / defense in a vacuum, Russell comes out on top due to his versatility of combining premier paint defense, mobility and court coverage, along with the shot-blocking and rebounding Chamberlain provided. Part of this is enabled due to Russell being ~ 5 inches shorter and 60-70 pounds lighter. Even if Chamberlain could do stuff like this, Russell could do it and did it far more often. Chamberlain in the contrary was placed near the basket a lot more often, and for that era - it wasn't a detriment or even remotely close to one due to the threat of him erasing a drive to the basket, blocking anything sent his way, and having the 7' 2" , 290 lb build that made him one of the two best aggregate rebounders. I view Chamberlain as a Mount Rushmore defender as well, comparable to Hakeem and Nate Thurmond.

This doesn't get into team data as well, where the highest marks Wilt was able to anchor the Lakers and 76ers too didn't compare to Russell's best team defenses. This isn't putting down Wilt because of "being a Russell acolyte", it's a basketball truth backed by film and data.

There's no need to be up in arms over such a statement because it, for one, is literally true

Again - nonsense.

This doesn't get into team data as well, where the highest marks Wilt was able to anchor the Lakers and 76ers too didn't compare to Russell's best team defenses. This isn't putting down Wilt because of "being a Russell acolyte", it's a basketball truth backed by film and data.

What team defensive data are you referring to? There is NO complete team defensive data from the 1960s. I suggest you go back and read the "Russell's defensive impact" thread, and note that the game pace estimates Basketball Reference used for the Celtics of the late 1950s and early to mid-1960s were erroneous/flawed.

And, yes, I did watch late career Wilt from about late 60s on whenever he was on TV including matchups against Russell though I wasn't terribly analytical back then as a preteen/early teen.

kcktiny wrote:

There's no need to be up in arms over such a statement because it, for one, is literally true

Again - nonsense.

This doesn't get into team data as well, where the highest marks Wilt was able to anchor the Lakers and 76ers too didn't compare to Russell's best team defenses. This isn't putting down Wilt because of "being a Russell acolyte", it's a basketball truth backed by film and data.

What team defensive data are you referring to? There is NO complete team defensive data from the 1960s. I suggest you go back and read the "Russell's defensive impact" thread, and note that the game pace estimates Basketball Reference used for the Celtics of the late 1950s and early to mid-1960s were erroneous/flawed.

If you are willing to send people back to this older thread, I want to remind you that we have discussion about the 1960s pace estimations and you decided not to answer to my points. Yes, we don't have complete pace numbers from that era. No, it's not true that we don't have reliable estimations.

You are very willing to call other opinions "nonsense" but your level of argumentation is quite shallow for someone who believes that knows everything better.

kcktiny wrote:

There's no need to be up in arms over such a statement because it, for one, is literally true

Again - nonsense.

This doesn't get into team data as well, where the highest marks Wilt was able to anchor the Lakers and 76ers too didn't compare to Russell's best team defenses. This isn't putting down Wilt because of "being a Russell acolyte", it's a basketball truth backed by film and data.

What team defensive data are you referring to? There is NO complete team defensive data from the 1960s. I suggest you go back and read the "Russell's defensive impact" thread, and note that the game pace estimates Basketball Reference used for the Celtics of the late 1950s and early to mid-1960s were erroneous/flawed.

I suggest you go back and watch some holistic film, read some testimonials, and actually look into things outside of highlight tapes.. as you weren’t able to refute anything granular that I provided. Rather labeling that and other similar sentiment as “nonsense” because it doesn’t fit your anchoring notions fits as a cop out I guess.

Also the team data of points allowed exists (you know, the team stat that is one half of winning games!) in which Russell’s Celtics come out on top regardless of pace.

There's no need to be up in arms over such a statement because it, for one, is literally true

Nonsense.

Again, watch the video. A young Wilt Chamberlain was not "parked under the basket". He was all over the place on defense. Getting up and down the floor faster than almost anyone, defending better than almost everyone.

The people of that time voted Russell to the all-defensive 1st team once, Chamberlain twice, and Russell himself has praised Chamberlain's defense.

and, secondly, isn't a knack at Chamberlain for anybody who understands the nuances of defense then vs. now.

But you some 50-60 years later say no. Why? Because it is only you who "understands the nuances of defense"?

Uh-huh.

Even if Chamberlain could do stuff like this

Wait a minute. What do you mean "if"? Didn't you watch Chamberlain play?

I view Chamberlain as a Mount Rushmore defender as well, comparable to Hakeem and Nate Thurmond.

He clearly belongs there.

If you are willing to send people back to this older thread, I want to remind you that we have discussion about the 1960s pace estimations and you decided not to answer to my points.

Come again?

In that thread you said:

Players like Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond are absolutely among the greatest defenders ever, but they weren't on Russell level.

The people that saw them play back then thought otherwise. Again - the people of that time voted Russell to the all-defensive 1st team once, Chamberlain twice, Thurmond twice. That's the highest level possible at that time.

Saying they are not on the same level defensively is being disingenuous. In 1968-69 Russell and Thurmond were both voted all-defensive 1st team, both played C, and were voted in over the likes of Chamberlain, Reed, Unseld, Bellamy.

In 1970-71 Thurmond was voted all-defensive 1st team over Jabbar, Chamberlain, Cowens, Bellamy, Unseld, Reed.

In 1971-72 and 1972-73 Chamberlain was voted all-defensive 1st team over Thurmond, Jabbar, Cowens, Unseld, Lanier, Elmore Smith, Bellamy.

The people that saw them play the most at that time thought enough of their defense to vote Russell and Chamberlain and Thurmond as the top defensive C in the league.

Saying they weren't on the same level defensively is nonsense.

Then you said this:

You can check by yourself the formula, it's not complicated.

When you clearly had not yourself.

When you finally realized the flaws in the Basketball-Reference estimates for DRtg, you presented your DFG% data, and sure enough even admitted:

Sorry, but the difference between Celtics and Sixers defense wasn't that massive during that period

So yeah, the difference isn't drastic

Yet you still insist:

they weren't on Russell level

And this statement:

We don't know how many blocks Russell and Wilt averaged, but we do know that all the most prolific shotblockers since the 1974 played in the late 1980s and the early 1990s.

You do know your history, don't you? What happened to Tree Rollins, George Johnson, Mark Eaton, Manute Bol - they weren't prolific shot blockers?

You then stated this:

We have more conservative estimations that still put Celtics as by far the best defensive team of their era.

But do not show how you estimated defensive stats such at missed FGAs, defensive rebounds, turnovers forced, none of that, which is the core to how you estimate team defensive possessions.

Just listing an estimated team DRtg without showing estimates for these stats is meaningless.

And when I stated the Celtics game pace could not have been as high as the Basketball-Reference estimates show, you stated:

How can you know that? You don't have more data than us, you can assume it's wrong but you don't know it.

You stood by those numbers regardless. You even said this:

You just think it's impossible for Celtics to be fast paced defensive team, but even if you listen Russell and Red that was their gameplan.

So here you actually listen to Russell? What about when Russell says Chamberlain was also a great defender like him? You believe him then?

Then went on to list DFG% numbers where the differential between Russell and Chamberlain's teams was far less than that estimated by Basketball-Reference.

Lastly at the end of that thread someone wrote this:

the Celtics were clearly still a defensively oriented team but not to the extent that we previously thought

you weren’t able to refute anything granular that I provided. Rather labeling that and other similar sentiment as “nonsense” because it doesn’t fit your anchoring notions fits as a cop out I guess.

Not as much of a cop out as claiming Russell was clearly a better defender or on another level defender that the likes of Chamberlain and Thurmond without proof.

You are very willing to call other opinions "nonsense" but your level of argumentation is quite shallow for someone who believes that knows everything better.

But saying one of the league's greatest even defenders for well over a decade and some 1000+ games played "parked himself under the basket" to try to emphasize what in your uninformed opinion he did not do compared to what your favorite player did is not shallow?

Especially when the people who saw them play at the time had them at similar levels defensively - all-defensive 1st team?

Right.

Marcus Camby earned two first-team all-defence nods over Ben Wallace and Dwight Howard and is therefore at the same level as Wilt.

Nonsense.

Again, watch the video. A young Wilt Chamberlain was not "parked under the basket". He was all over the place on defense. Getting up and down the floor faster than almost anyone, defending better than almost everyone.

The people of that time voted Russell to the all-defensive 1st team once, Chamberlain twice, and Russell himself has praised Chamberlain's defense.

Yes, a lot of people praised Chamberlain as an all-time great pantheon level/value defender. The sky is blue! I never denied that Wilt could run the floor and cover areas throughout the HC rather than paint-camping. My premise was that Russell did so MORE OFTEN . This is what you ignored.

And really? All-Defensive selections? For someone who claims to have watched basketball live for this long, it's shocking to see you gloss over the fact these were awarded beginning 1969 - Russell's last year and while Chamberlain was still playing. Accolades shouldn't even be the measuring stick in the regard of assessing defense, as the two of them likely would have won a well share of 1st team selections through the 60s. Let's say Jerry West does this as well at the guard position, does having as many first-team nods make him equal to Chamberlain or Russell on defense? Yeah, didn't think so..

and, secondly, isn't a knack at Chamberlain for anybody who understands the nuances of defense then vs. now.

But you some 50-60 years later say no. Why? Because it is only you who "understands the nuances of defense"?

Uh-huh.

When I say this, I am referring to the nuances of how defense was played back then compared to how it is played now. I think there are many on here and across the world whom watch basketball that understand both eras - and it's likely that them considering Russell more valuable a defender than Wilt whether it's peak, prime, career value, longevity serves as a reinforcement / litmus test of such.

Even if Chamberlain could do stuff like this

Wait a minute. What do you mean "if"? Didn't you watch Chamberlain play?

I have watched all the film I can, including all you linked. Perhaps Google what "even if" means, as I am not denying your original premise on how Wilt wasn't solely a paint camper on defense.

I view Chamberlain as a Mount Rushmore defender as well, comparable to Hakeem and Nate Thurmond.

He clearly belongs there.

Yes, Thank you for reinforcing my point.

you weren’t able to refute anything granular that I provided. Rather labeling that and other similar sentiment as “nonsense” because it doesn’t fit your anchoring notions fits as a cop out I guess.

Not as much of a cop out as claiming Russell was clearly a better defender or on another level defender that the likes of Chamberlain and Thurmond without proof.

All the proof is there at your arsenal, like it is ours. If you question the accuracy of pace estimations from this era, wouldn't this be an issue that applies across the league and not just specifically towards Russell's Celtics? A problem pertaining to that era wouldn't just skew the Celtics numbers when you look relatively. Even with the possibility / theory of "slower and more accurate pace estimates" releasing in the future, there's very little to suggest the Celtics relative defensive ratings would change relative to their competition or on a historical scale.

And if you choose to outright reject it, just look at points allowed per game - where Boston ranks 2nd or 1st every single season of Russell's through the 1960s in spite of the very fast paced-estimates provided.

For comparison:
The 1972 / 73 Laker teams ranked 6th and 5th in this measure. Their best year in the Wilt era was 1970 (2nd) - the year he missed most games.

The 1966-68 76ers? 3rd, 3rd, 4th by year. The 1960-64 Warriors? 4th, 5th, 9th, 9th, 1st. If you want to repeat said exercise for Thurmond, read at your discretion (https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/opp_stats_per_game_ranks.html).

Since "we can't trust pace", here's your proof

kcktiny wrote:

If you are willing to send people back to this older thread, I want to remind you that we have discussion about the 1960s pace estimations and you decided not to answer to my points.

Come again?

In that thread you said:

Players like Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond are absolutely among the greatest defenders ever, but they weren't on Russell level.

The people that saw them play back then thought otherwise. Again - the people of that time voted Russell to the all-defensive 1st team once, Chamberlain twice, Thurmond twice. That's the highest level possible at that time.

Wait, so your level of "nuances" shows you that all players selected in all-defensive first team across different years are on the same level? Do you equate Marcus Camby and Wilt Chamberlain on defense as well?

Not to mention that Russell won only one all-defensive team, because they introduced such voting in his last season...

Saying they are not on the same level defensively is being disingenuous. In 1968-69 Russell and Thurmond were both voted all-defensive 1st team, both played C, and were voted in over the likes of Chamberlain, Reed, Unseld, Bellamy.

So does it mean they are on the same level? That's all you need? Seriously?

In 1970-71 Thurmond was voted all-defensive 1st team over Jabbar, Chamberlain, Cowens, Bellamy, Unseld, Reed.

In 1971-72 and 1972-73 Chamberlain was voted all-defensive 1st team over Thurmond, Jabbar, Cowens, Unseld, Lanier, Elmore Smith, Bellamy.

The people that saw them play the most at that time thought enough of their defense to vote Russell and Chamberlain and Thurmond as the top defensive C in the league.

Just because they are seen as the top centers in the league, it doesn't mean that all of them are equal on defense...

Saying they weren't on the same level defensively is nonsense.

So you can't differentiate between good defenders? That's news to me, care to elaborate?

Then you said this:

You can check by yourself the formula, it's not complicated.

When you clearly had not yourself.

I did.

When you finally realized the flaws in the Basketball-Reference estimates for DRtg, you presented your DFG% data, and sure enough even admitted:

Sorry, but the difference between Celtics and Sixers defense wasn't that massive during that period

So yeah, the difference isn't drastic

Yet you still insist:

they weren't on Russell level

Yeah, I don't see anything contradictional here. I was aware that Basketball-Reference estimates have higher margin of error than more recent Ben estimates. You started comparing the best defense in the league with second best and concluded that the gap isn't massive, therefore Russell Celtics weren't dominant defensively.

You ignored the fact that you picked the best Wilt defensive teams of his career and compared it to average Russell team. You started comparing the difference between best defenses and average ones in the 1970s to the difference between the best and second best team in the league.

So no, I didn't do anything wrong here. You just ignored my points.

And this statement:

We don't know how many blocks Russell and Wilt averaged, but we do know that all the most prolific shotblockers since the 1974 played in the late 1980s and the early 1990s.

You do know your history, don't you? What happened to Tree Rollins, George Johnson, Mark Eaton, Manute Bol - they weren't prolific shot blockers?

Manute Bol and Mark Eaton were late 1980s players... what are you talking about?
Yes, Johnson and Rollins were dominant shotblockers, but they were in minority compared to the 1990s players.

You then stated this:

We have more conservative estimations that still put Celtics as by far the best defensive team of their era.

But do not show how you estimated defensive stats such at missed FGAs, defensive rebounds, turnovers forced, none of that, which is the core to how you estimate team defensive possessions.

Just listing an estimated team DRtg without showing estimates for these stats is meaningless.

It's not meaningless, it's less accurate. I don't know if you understand how regression works, but such non-linear estimation gives us an output with optimal error around 1 point per100 if I remember correctly.

Does it mean that it's not possible that some of these estimates have higher error? No, but anyone who has the basic understanding of statistics realizes the limitations of such models. It doesn't make them useless, otherwise you can throw away 95% of science.

And when I stated the Celtics game pace could not have been as high as the Basketball-Reference estimates show, you stated:

How can you know that? You don't have more data than us, you can assume it's wrong but you don't know it.

You stood by those numbers regardless.

Yes, because even this imperfect methodology gives us some data with certain errors. You provide nothing other than "common sense".

You even said this:

You just think it's impossible for Celtics to be fast paced defensive team, but even if you listen Russell and Red that was their gameplan.

So here you actually listen to Russell? What about when Russell says Chamberlain was also a great defender like him? You believe him then?

I used such argument because I know that you value such opinions highly. I definitely agree with Russell that he was also a great defender, why wouldn't I? Where did I state that Wilt wasn't a great defender? It seems that you struggle to understand that there can be a gradation of greatness.

Then went on to list DFG% numbers where the differential between Russell and Chamberlain's teams was far less than that estimated by Basketball-Reference.

No, they weren't "far less".

Lastly at the end of that thread someone wrote this:

the Celtics were clearly still a defensively oriented team but not to the extent that we previously thought

you weren’t able to refute anything granular that I provided. Rather labeling that and other similar sentiment as “nonsense” because it doesn’t fit your anchoring notions fits as a cop out I guess.

Not as much of a cop out as claiming Russell was clearly a better defender or on another level defender that the likes of Chamberlain and Thurmond without proof.

Are you aware that these numbers still show Celtics as much more dominant that Wilt teams on defense?

Maybe I would give you more reasons if you showed the minimum of good faith in this discussion, but instead you decided to do your things and call every other opinion "nonsense".

But saying one of the league's greatest even defenders for well over a decade and some 1000+ games played "parked himself under the basket" to try to emphasize what in your uninformed opinion he did not do compared to what your favorite player did is not shallow?

Well, I can understand langustic nuances like hyperbole, even though English is not my native language. Of course Wilt didn't just "park himself under the basket" in literal way, but it's true that he was less active outside the paint and wasn't willing to defend P&Rs high in the same frequency as Russell. I have defensive possessions tracked to back it up.

Especially when the people who saw them play at the time had them at similar levels defensively - all-defensive 1st team?

I want to remind you that Wilt never got voted in all-defensive 1st team when Russell was active. I also want to remind you that not every all-defensive 1st team member is identical on defense.

rk2023 wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

dygaction wrote:Those players are usually not on the GOAT defensive teams as they often were even more so their best offensive options, but what if each and every of them are not required to be great offensively when they can focus entirely on defense? Do they have the GOAT defense potential?
C: Wilt
PF: Giannis
SF: LeBron
SG: Jordan
PG: CP3

C: Russell/Hakeem
PF:KG
SF: Dray
SG: Kawhi/Pippen
PG: Tony Allen

Giannis underrated on defense though, DPOY giannis had impact similar to Boston KG iirc on that end altho I may be tripping

Would you mind elaborating? While Giannis is nothing short of remarkable defensively when keyed in - I believe some +/- and team signals have Boston KG as the most valuable player in data-ball.

Using the shotcharts rapm dataset which is only single year, but 2020 Giannis looks pretty comparable to KGs best years even though it’s only 2010-2023 on defense, esp when you see the guys around him making it look like Giannis probably got hurt from collinearnity stuff more.

Yeah, if I remember correctly Giannis' Luck Adjusted RAPM for 2020 is añkdjf48465 levels of insane (like, he led with a 50% higher score than 2nd or something -- EDIT: he has +3.19 vs +2.07 for #2).

Then again,

1) we have bigger samples (3-year, 5-year) from the same source that still capture Giannis' peak but put him at "only" top 5 in the league, not "Bill Russell ++" level, which feels more accurate. (Post-prime Garnett including the Brooklyn years leads the league in dRAPM in the 12-15 and 13-16 periods, by the way -- of course inability to play big minutes, role, blah blah)
2) luck adjustment adjusts opposing 3pt% in a way that does not really feel logical given Milwaukee's defensive scheme
3) HUGE collinearity issues

2+3 combine in such a way that, for example, the top 4 in 2020 LA dRAPM is all Milwaukee.

Jaivl wrote:

Yeah, if I remember correctly Giannis' Luck Adjusted RAPM for 2020 is añkdjf48465 levels of insane (like, he led with a 50% higher score than 2nd or something -- EDIT: he has +3.19 vs +2.07 for #2).

Then again,

1) we have bigger samples (3-year, 5-year) from the same source that still capture Giannis' peak but put him at "only" top 5 in the league, not "Bill Russell ++" level, which feels more accurate. (Post-prime Garnett including the Brooklyn years leads the league in dRAPM in the 12-15 and 13-16 periods, by the way -- of course inability to play big minutes, role, blah blah)

Some of that's probably a product of coasting. Bucks RS defense has dropped off signficantly, but they go back to historically great in the postseason

2) luck adjustment adjusts opposing 3pt% in a way that does not really feel logical given Milwaukee's defensive scheme

Elaborate?

3) HUGE collinearity issues

Huger than boston KG's? Also just how huge are they. Bucks were still the best defense in the league without brook from 2019-2020 IIRC(effect was not replicated when it was brook, and no giannis

2+3 combine in such a way that, for example, the top 4 in 2020 LA dRAPM is all Milwaukee.

Well, the alternative explanation is that regularization misattributed Giannis's value to his teammates. His 2019/2020 looks crazy taking the raw approach, 2020 definitely could be reaching outlier territory.