RealGM

Especially relative to what it's been in the past. Only want to consider *realistic* defensive players. Frankenstein hybrids (like Mutombo with Iverson's food speed) don't make a ton of sense to consider.

In particular, looking at playoff-resilient defensive impact. If we feel that Gobert's defense can be exploited by any team (and not something completely anomalous), his ceiling wouldn't be as high as it is during the regular season.

Motivation is, want to establish how effective certain all-time defenders would be in today's league (especially Garnett, Russell, Hakeem). Can you even have an MVP-level guy who is league average or worse offensively and provides all of his additive value on the defensive side on the ball?

You can still be very impactful in a postseason setting, a basically 70% AD basically smacked the grizzlies and the warriors from his defense alone and our entire defensive gameplan really revolved around him, and over the first two rounds it was looking like one of the absolute best defensive runs we’ve seen, even though it wasn’t suprising that it fell off a bit vs denver (although he was part of our post defense gameplan which actually ended up working fantastic)

But you kind of need multiple guys that can fill multiple roles defensively so you can’t drop someone into a bad defensive team and expect them to make the team defensively elite and resilient to different offenses, and game planning is really important as well. Versatility only helps when it’s utilized, but at an elite setting it’s more covering roles than anything else. If you have a team of all average or below average defenders and drop like the GOAT defensive talent on there nowadays in a playoff setting it’s not gonna be pretty against a good team even if their regular season results are solid, offensively I don’t really think the same thing applies as much, but you can be more a glue that can hold a team of specific talents instead, but liabilities and stuff like that are still a pretty big deal

The thing is, for the most part the equilibrium when it comes to great offense vs great defense is the great offense winning out, because a lot of great defensive performances revolve around taking advantage of offensive shortcomings, for example, yeah AD was a huge part of shutting down the warriors but top locking guys into AD on cuts and a high drop are both things that could have been countered if the warriors had different type of guys around them, or even if Curry was hitting 30-40 footers like he did at his peak. Ditto with the grizzlies not knowing how to attack drop + Brooks. Defense naturally gives something up

I don’t think you can be an MVP if ur offensively a neutral , at least not in a realistic playoff context

MyUniBroDavis wrote:You can still be very impactful in a postseason setting, a basically 70% AD basically smacked the grizzlies and the warriors from his defense alone and our entire defensive gameplan really revolved around him, and over the first two rounds it was looking like one of the absolute best defensive runs we’ve seen, even though it wasn’t suprising that it fell off a bit vs denver (although he was part of our post defense gameplan which actually ended up working fantastic)

But you kind of need multiple guys that can fill multiple roles defensively so you can’t drop someone into a bad defensive team and expect them to make the team defensively elite and resilient to different offenses, and game planning is really important as well. Versatility only helps when it’s utilized, but at an elite setting it’s more covering roles than anything else. If you have a team of all average or below average defenders and drop like the GOAT defensive talent on there nowadays in a playoff setting it’s not gonna be pretty against a good team even if their regular season results are solid, offensively I don’t really think the same thing applies as much, but you can be more a glue that can hold a team of specific talents instead, but liabilities and stuff like that are still a pretty big deal

The thing is, for the most part the equilibrium when it comes to great offense vs great defense is the great offense winning out, because a lot of great defensive performances revolve around taking advantage of offensive shortcomings, for example, yeah AD was a huge part of shutting down the warriors but top locking guys into AD on cuts and a high drop are both things that could have been countered if the warriors had different type of guys around them, or even if Curry was hitting 30-40 footers like he did at his peak. Ditto with the grizzlies not knowing how to attack drop + Brooks. Defense naturally gives something up

I don’t think you can be an MVP if ur offensively a neutral , at least not in a realistic playoff context

Could you ever? Or do you just think this is the case in today's league?

ceiling raiser wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:You can still be very impactful in a postseason setting, a basically 70% AD basically smacked the grizzlies and the warriors from his defense alone and our entire defensive gameplan really revolved around him, and over the first two rounds it was looking like one of the absolute best defensive runs we’ve seen, even though it wasn’t suprising that it fell off a bit vs denver (although he was part of our post defense gameplan which actually ended up working fantastic)

But you kind of need multiple guys that can fill multiple roles defensively so you can’t drop someone into a bad defensive team and expect them to make the team defensively elite and resilient to different offenses, and game planning is really important as well. Versatility only helps when it’s utilized, but at an elite setting it’s more covering roles than anything else. If you have a team of all average or below average defenders and drop like the GOAT defensive talent on there nowadays in a playoff setting it’s not gonna be pretty against a good team even if their regular season results are solid, offensively I don’t really think the same thing applies as much, but you can be more a glue that can hold a team of specific talents instead, but liabilities and stuff like that are still a pretty big deal

The thing is, for the most part the equilibrium when it comes to great offense vs great defense is the great offense winning out, because a lot of great defensive performances revolve around taking advantage of offensive shortcomings, for example, yeah AD was a huge part of shutting down the warriors but top locking guys into AD on cuts and a high drop are both things that could have been countered if the warriors had different type of guys around them, or even if Curry was hitting 30-40 footers like he did at his peak. Ditto with the grizzlies not knowing how to attack drop + Brooks. Defense naturally gives something up

I don’t think you can be an MVP if ur offensively a neutral , at least not in a realistic playoff context

Could you ever? Or do you just think this is the case in today's league?

The 60s prob lol considering bill russell existed. Some of it comes from how good you think guys are/were in an absolute sense as well

There were probably eras where being an elite versatile rim protector could cover up far more in the postseason in normal circumstances, but it’s a stretch most eras for sure.

ceiling raiser wrote:Especially relative to what it's been in the past. Only want to consider *realistic* defensive players. Frankenstein hybrids (like Mutombo with Iverson's food speed) don't make a ton of sense to consider.

In particular, looking at playoff-resilient defensive impact. If we feel that Gobert's defense can be exploited by any team (and not something completely anomalous), his ceiling wouldn't be as high as it is during the regular season.

Motivation is, want to establish how effective certain all-time defenders would be in today's league (especially Garnett, Russell, Hakeem). Can you even have an MVP-level guy who is league average or worse offensively and provides all of his additive value on the defensive side on the ball?

Since Russell and Hakeem are elite rim protectors (and Garnett is at least average for a big) and all three had elite quickness for a big, they are indeed defensive Frankenstein hybrids. Add in Russell's elite knowledge of positioning and study of opposing players and his defensive rebounding (which gets overlooked in this kind of discussion frequently), Hakeem's great lower body strength and steals, and all three as defensive signal callers, and you have someone a level above anyone in the league today with Garnett a level below the other two (and still top 10 all time!) who will kill you if you try to hunt him. Then put him on a team like Golden State in place of Draymond where he doesn't need to provide offense and sure, he could have MVP level impact. Draymond is maybe one level down from MVP, All-NBA level impact, and he doesn't add the extra rim protection of Russell or Hakeem. Oh and none of the three were known for taking lots of minutes and games off which helps their case as well.

Russell in the 60s level impact, no. The game changed too much in the second half of the 2010s. But given the right situation, MVP in the 2020s, yes. Could he get the votes? Well, if they win a title and he leads the league in rebounds, blocks, and is the clear best player despite not being a scorer, sure.

You could similarly ask whether a guard could have MVP level impact without a 3 point shot and use it to disparage Jordan (and in a few years, if current trends continue, I am sure we will see that argument.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

ceiling raiser wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:You can still be very impactful in a postseason setting, a basically 70% AD basically smacked the grizzlies and the warriors from his defense alone and our entire defensive gameplan really revolved around him, and over the first two rounds it was looking like one of the absolute best defensive runs we’ve seen, even though it wasn’t suprising that it fell off a bit vs denver (although he was part of our post defense gameplan which actually ended up working fantastic)

But you kind of need multiple guys that can fill multiple roles defensively so you can’t drop someone into a bad defensive team and expect them to make the team defensively elite and resilient to different offenses, and game planning is really important as well. Versatility only helps when it’s utilized, but at an elite setting it’s more covering roles than anything else. If you have a team of all average or below average defenders and drop like the GOAT defensive talent on there nowadays in a playoff setting it’s not gonna be pretty against a good team even if their regular season results are solid, offensively I don’t really think the same thing applies as much, but you can be more a glue that can hold a team of specific talents instead, but liabilities and stuff like that are still a pretty big deal

The thing is, for the most part the equilibrium when it comes to great offense vs great defense is the great offense winning out, because a lot of great defensive performances revolve around taking advantage of offensive shortcomings, for example, yeah AD was a huge part of shutting down the warriors but top locking guys into AD on cuts and a high drop are both things that could have been countered if the warriors had different type of guys around them, or even if Curry was hitting 30-40 footers like he did at his peak. Ditto with the grizzlies not knowing how to attack drop + Brooks. Defense naturally gives something up

I don’t think you can be an MVP if ur offensively a neutral , at least not in a realistic playoff context

Could you ever? Or do you just think this is the case in today's league?

The 60s prob lol considering bill russell existed. Some of it comes from how good you think guys are/were in an absolute sense as well

There were probably eras where being an elite versatile rim protector could cover up far more in the postseason in normal circumstances, but it’s a stretch most eras for sure.

Russell wasn't a neutral offensive player though.

Colbinii wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

ceiling raiser wrote:Could you ever? Or do you just think this is the case in today's league?

The 60s prob lol considering bill russell existed. Some of it comes from how good you think guys are/were in an absolute sense as well

There were probably eras where being an elite versatile rim protector could cover up far more in the postseason in normal circumstances, but it’s a stretch most eras for sure.

Russell wasn't a neutral offensive player though.

How do you rate his offense?

jalengreen wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:
The 60s prob lol considering bill russell existed. Some of it comes from how good you think guys are/were in an absolute sense as well

There were probably eras where being an elite versatile rim protector could cover up far more in the postseason in normal circumstances, but it’s a stretch most eras for sure.

Russell wasn't a neutral offensive player though.

How do you rate his offense?

Certainly above average for his era.

Colbinii wrote:

jalengreen wrote:

Colbinii wrote:
Russell wasn't a neutral offensive player though.

How do you rate his offense?

Certainly above average for his era.

I also would view it as a clear + , at-least for a fair share of time.

penbeast0 wrote:

ceiling raiser wrote:Especially relative to what it's been in the past. Only want to consider *realistic* defensive players. Frankenstein hybrids (like Mutombo with Iverson's food speed) don't make a ton of sense to consider.

In particular, looking at playoff-resilient defensive impact. If we feel that Gobert's defense can be exploited by any team (and not something completely anomalous), his ceiling wouldn't be as high as it is during the regular season.

Motivation is, want to establish how effective certain all-time defenders would be in today's league (especially Garnett, Russell, Hakeem). Can you even have an MVP-level guy who is league average or worse offensively and provides all of his additive value on the defensive side on the ball?

Since Russell and Hakeem are elite rim protectors (and Garnett is at least average for a big) and all three had elite quickness for a big, they are indeed defensive Frankenstein hybrids. Add in Russell's elite knowledge of positioning and study of opposing players and his defensive rebounding (which gets overlooked in this kind of discussion frequently), Hakeem's great lower body strength and steals, and all three as defensive signal callers, and you have someone a level above anyone in the league today with Garnett a level below the other two (and still top 10 all time!) who will kill you if you try to hunt him. Then put him on a team like Golden State in place of Draymond where he doesn't need to provide offense and sure, he could have MVP level impact. Draymond is maybe one level down from MVP, All-NBA level impact, and he doesn't add the extra rim protection of Russell or Hakeem. Oh and none of the three were known for taking lots of minutes and games off which helps their case as well.

Russell in the 60s level impact, no. The game changed too much in the second half of the 2010s. But given the right situation, MVP in the 2020s, yes. Could he get the votes? Well, if they win a title and he leads the league in rebounds, blocks, and is the clear best player despite not being a scorer, sure.

You could similarly ask whether a guard could have MVP level impact without a 3 point shot and use it to disparage Jordan (and in a few years, if current trends continue, I am sure we will see that argument.

This is actually a very good point.

I have Draymond as a top 5 player in the league from 2015-19. I believe (1) the vast majority of Draymond's value above replacement was on the defensive end and (2) Russell would be a clearly better defensive player than Draymond due to rim protection.

Unless I think Draymond's advantage defending perimeter players is significant *or* his playmaking ability is elite, would need to view Russell as a best-in-the-league candidate even in 2023.

A good mental exercise is:

(1) How many quality seasons does Draymond have (I'd say 8, 15-23, exclusive of 21).
(2) Where does one rank Draymond all-time (would peg him at top 30 all-time?)

Russell had 14 quality seasons. If Draymond played 6 more years, I would need to have him top 15-20 all-time. Since Russell very likely peaked higher, he should be top 5-10 all-time (or higher).

Russell adds two more factors over Dray, who I agree is a very valuable player though you have him higher than I do. (a) He'd probably be the best rebounder in the league (well, he and Andre Drummond if Drummond is getting minutes), and (b) he's a strong leadership/intangibles guy who solves rather than creates clubhouse problems.

Isn’t Rudy G the epitome of the answer to this modern question?

Even if he isn’t 1000% resilient to NBA Offenses at all times… However good you believe Rudy G to be as a player( Mid-Low Tier All Star, With Exploitative Aspects due to offensive incompetence) is the answer to your question!

WintaSoldier1 wrote:Isn’t Rudy G the epitome of the answer to this modern question?

Even if he isn’t 1000% resilient to NBA Offenses at all times… However good you believe Rudy G to be as a player( Mid-Low Tier All Star, With Exploitative Aspects due to offensive incompetence) is the answer to your question!

Offensively he’s weird because he’s so reliant on what’s happening around him, but defensively there’s a playoff dropoff. He’s still great but it’s for sure a dropoff

Good defense comes with good coaching and most of the top tier defensive guys have qualities where they can be effective offensively

Dray is mid offensively but he’s a great short roll playmaker and that fits insanely well with the warriors offense, defensively yeah I have playoff dray as a tier 1 guy, so that’s relatively close I guess

I disagree with “bigger faster smarter dray” assessments when talking about other ATG defenders, a 7 foot dray would be in a tier of his own defensively

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

WintaSoldier1 wrote:Isn’t Rudy G the epitome of the answer to this modern question?

Even if he isn’t 1000% resilient to NBA Offenses at all times… However good you believe Rudy G to be as a player( Mid-Low Tier All Star, With Exploitative Aspects due to offensive incompetence) is the answer to your question!

Offensively he’s weird because he’s so reliant on what’s happening around him, but defensively there’s a playoff dropoff. He’s still great but it’s for sure a dropoff

Yeah offensively he isn’t great, but is he actually far far below average? Is he that far away from being a neutral+ offensive player? I mean he sets hard/Great screens and has presence on downhill/Vertical rim run Presence.

The only reason people stink on Rudy G is because there’s times when he may appear to have the ability to do more then he’s currently doing and most of it is acclimated to his Poor Touch/Hands especially at the rim.

In your opinion where would you rank him offensively as a Starting Center? 15-18 Sounds right to me, I cant imagine he goes lower than 22!

WintaSoldier1 wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

WintaSoldier1 wrote:Isn’t Rudy G the epitome of the answer to this modern question?

Even if he isn’t 1000% resilient to NBA Offenses at all times… However good you believe Rudy G to be as a player( Mid-Low Tier All Star, With Exploitative Aspects due to offensive incompetence) is the answer to your question!

Offensively he’s weird because he’s so reliant on what’s happening around him, but defensively there’s a playoff dropoff. He’s still great but it’s for sure a dropoff

Yeah offensively he isn’t great, but is he actually far far below average? Is he that far away from being a neutral+ offensive player? I mean he sets hard/Great screens and has presence on downhill/Vertical rim run Presence.

The only reason people stink on Rudy G is because there’s times when he may appear to have the ability to do more then he’s currently doing and most of it is acclimated to his Poor Touch/Hands especially at the rim.

In your opinion where would you rank him offensively as a Starting Center? 15-18 Sounds right to me, I cant imagine he goes lower than 22!

I think you misunderstood what I said, he’s better than the average nba center offensively because he’s a good finisher sets good screens and mobile, just a good target even though he sucks in the post

I think defensively he’s not the peak of what you can get today, playoffs wise, even though he’s quite great even in that setting

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

WintaSoldier1 wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:
Offensively he’s weird because he’s so reliant on what’s happening around him, but defensively there’s a playoff dropoff. He’s still great but it’s for sure a dropoff

Yeah offensively he isn’t great, but is he actually far far below average? Is he that far away from being a neutral+ offensive player? I mean he sets hard/Great screens and has presence on downhill/Vertical rim run Presence.

The only reason people stink on Rudy G is because there’s times when he may appear to have the ability to do more then he’s currently doing and most of it is acclimated to his Poor Touch/Hands especially at the rim.

In your opinion where would you rank him offensively as a Starting Center? 15-18 Sounds right to me, I cant imagine he goes lower than 22!

I think you misunderstood what I said, he’s better than the average nba center offensively because he’s a good finisher sets good screens and mobile, just a good target even though he sucks in the post

I think defensively he’s not the peak of what you can get today, playoffs wise, even though he’s quite great even in that setting

Ah, Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Wow, where do you think he ranks as a defensive player in the league then?

Personally for this Era, I believe Rudy G is the second best defender( Behind AD), I understand some of the playoff critique about how his value diminishes, but it feels like punishment for being so dominant in the regular season, Yet a still extremely good player in the post season.

If you’re talking about peaks are you referring to the broaden scope of Upper echelon defenders in the playoffs and you’re saying Rudy G isn’t one of them? Or are you saying that Rudy G isn’t the flat out best defender within a playoff atmosphere?

you don't want a freak unrealistic hybrid and one of your conditions is also "average offense", while still being a defense-first MVP level player

Can I introduce you to 2025 Monsieur Wembanyama ?

[gfycat][/gfycat]

WintaSoldier1 wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

WintaSoldier1 wrote:
Yeah offensively he isn’t great, but is he actually far far below average? Is he that far away from being a neutral+ offensive player? I mean he sets hard/Great screens and has presence on downhill/Vertical rim run Presence.

The only reason people stink on Rudy G is because there’s times when he may appear to have the ability to do more then he’s currently doing and most of it is acclimated to his Poor Touch/Hands especially at the rim.

In your opinion where would you rank him offensively as a Starting Center? 15-18 Sounds right to me, I cant imagine he goes lower than 22!

I think you misunderstood what I said, he’s better than the average nba center offensively because he’s a good finisher sets good screens and mobile, just a good target even though he sucks in the post

I think defensively he’s not the peak of what you can get today, playoffs wise, even though he’s quite great even in that setting

Ah, Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Wow, where do you think he ranks as a defensive player in the league then?

Personally for this Era, I believe Rudy G is the second best defender( Behind AD), I understand some of the playoff critique about how his value diminishes, but it feels like punishment for being so dominant in the regular season, Yet a still extremely good player in the post season.

If you’re talking about peaks are you referring to the broaden scope of Upper echelon defenders in the playoffs and you’re saying Rudy G isn’t one of them? Or are you saying that Rudy G isn’t the flat out best defender within a playoff atmosphere?

I’d say not flat out best. I’d rather have AD/Dray/JJJ for sure right now, but he’s clearly up there.

Peak for peak, I think of him as a top tier defender but I wouldn’t say he’s as good as AD or Drays postseason highs still, RS wise he’s an all timer for sure

He’s not inherently exploitable because he’s Lowkey mobile just not hyper mobile

MyUniBroDavis wrote:

WintaSoldier1 wrote:Isn’t Rudy G the epitome of the answer to this modern question?

Even if he isn’t 1000% resilient to NBA Offenses at all times… However good you believe Rudy G to be as a player( Mid-Low Tier All Star, With Exploitative Aspects due to offensive incompetence) is the answer to your question!

Offensively he’s weird because he’s so reliant on what’s happening around him, but defensively there’s a playoff dropoff. He’s still great but it’s for sure a dropoff

I think this is incredibly overstated, I don't see how prime Rudy couldn't do what Davis did in the last playoff even better, with the right team around him.
Give Davis rhe wrong teammates and his defense he's going to get "exposed" as well