RealGM

I was listening to Thinking Basketball's podcast while mowing the grass yesterday, and both hosts basically agreed that 2008 KG had the best defensive peak for a big men the past 15 years, above, if I remember correctly, (2) AD, (3) Draymond Green, (4) Dwight Howard, while 5/6 was Gobert and Giannis depending on which host you'd ask.


They specifically mentioned that 2008 was probably not even KG's peak, but rather 2003/2004.

I just don't see it, even with the "KG had bad teammates" excuse. Dwight Howard and Gobert were anchoring their teams to ~top-5 defenses consistently and it's not like they had great defensive teammates either.

Regular-Season only Tm Defensive Rating

Dwight Howard's Magic:
2007: -2.4 (6th of 30)
2008: -2.0 (6th of 30)
2009: -6.4 (1st of 30)
2010: -4.3 (3rd of 30)
2011: -5.3 (3rd of 30)

Rudy Gobert's Jazz:
2016: -2.5 (7th of 30)
2017: -3.5 (3rd of 30)
2018: -4.7 (2nd of 30)
2019: -4.7 (2nd of 30)
2021: -4.0 (4th of 30)

KG's Min:
2002: +0.8 (15th of 29)
2003: +0.2 (16th of 29)
2004: -3.2 (6th of 29)
2005: +0.5 (15th of 30)
2006: -1.7 (10th of 30)

We all know how great the KG's Celtics team defense were, but that is considered the latter part of KG's prime, or even post-prime. So if 2008 KG is not even considered his defensive peak, why could he not anchor his team to similar defensive heights as Gobert and Howard?

And if he is excused for poor teammates, why isn't Gobert given the same benefit of a doubt for his playoff performance while he basically carried the entire UTA defence. To a lesser extent that was also true for Dwight. It's not like he had lockdown defensive teammates.

Why are you not using On-Court Drtg for the players?

1997: -4.4 [+7.1 without Garnett, Net -11.5]
1998: -0.2 [+1.2 without Garnett, Net -1.4]
1999: -3.1 [-0.3 without Garnett, Net -2.8]
2000: -2.8 [+1.4 without Garnett, Net -4.2]
2001: -0.1 [+4.2 without Garnett, Net -4.3]
2002: -0.3 [+4.1 without Garnett, Net -4.4]
2003: -1.2 [+7.3 without Garnett, Net -8.5]
2004: -4.5 [+1.6 without Garnett, Net -6.1]
2005: 0.0 [-1.3 without Garnett, Net +1.3]
2006: -1.5 [-0.7 without Garnett, Net -0.8]
2007: -0.3 [+6.0 without Garnett, Net -6.3]


2007: -2.0 [-2.0 without Howard, Net 0.0]
2008: -1.0 [-3.9 without Howard, Net +2.9]
2009: -6.5 [-5.5 without Howard, Net -1.0]
2010: -4.7 [-1.4 without Howard, Net -3.3]
2011: -5.1 [-2.4 without Howard, Net -2.7}

Also, your Magic years are incorrect.

Here is what we get big picture.

Garnett [11 years]: -1.7 On-Court Drtg Per Season, +2.8 Off-Court Drtg Per Season, Net -4.5 On/Off Drtg
Howard [5 years]: -3.9 On-Court Drtg Per Season, -3.1 Off-Court Drtg Per Season, Net -0.8 On/Off Drtg

In other [actual] words, Garnett was taking bad defenses [Average of +2.8 Off-Court, which is around a 8,000 Minute Sample] and taking them to a good defense [-1.7 On-Court, 33,000 Minute Sample].

Howard was taking good defenses [-3.1 average Off-Court Drtg in around 5,000 Minute Sample] and taking them to a still good [borderline great] defense [-3.9 On-Court, 15,000 Minute Sample].

But, here is the thing. The years Garnett made his defenses good-to-great [1997, 1999, 2000, 2004], the defenses without Garnett were bad defenses [+2.4 Off-court rating].

I fail to see any argument for Dwight Howard in this comparison.

It is all very clear why these numbers are the way they are and what story they tell.

Garnett is an All-time great defensive Quarterback. He is the director and orchestrator of the defense. Without him, the defense literally crumbles as nobody else can replicate switching onto the Kobe's and T-Mac's of the world on the perimeter while helping on the weakside of a Shaq post-up on the same play, then grabbing the defensive rebound in traffic.

Howard is a weapon of mass destruction defensively. He can jump out of the building to block a shot, but he may be out of position. He can recover by being out of position due to his athleticism and make spectacular, athletic players that can't be replicated by most other centers. You give him 4 players who know where to be and what to do defensively, and those players will produce a good defense but you add Dwight and his athleticism and you get a great defense.

To tie in Gobert [and perhaps YOU can post his numbers since I provided the work for Garnett and Howard], he has a better feel for the game of basketball [especially defensively] compared to Howard. He isn't in the Garnett's of the world's, but during his time in Utah he assisting in orchestrating defensive sets and rotations from the back-line. I expect his +/- to resemble Garnett's more-so than Dwight's because of this.

Colbinii wrote:Also, your Magic years are incorrect.

my bad! it stands corrected

Colbinii wrote:Why are you not using On-Court Drtg for the players?

1997: -4.4 [+7.1 without Garnett, Net -11.5]
1998: -0.2 [+1.2 without Garnett, Net -1.4]
1999: -3.1 [-0.3 without Garnett, Net -2.8]
2000: -2.8 [+1.4 without Garnett, Net -4.2]
2001: -0.1 [+4.2 without Garnett, Net -4.3]
2002: -0.3 [+4.1 without Garnett, Net -4.4]
2003: -1.2 [+7.3 without Garnett, Net -8.5]
2004: -4.5 [+1.6 without Garnett, Net -6.1]
2005: 0.0 [-1.3 without Garnett, Net +1.3]
2006: -1.5 [-0.7 without Garnett, Net -0.8]
2007: -0.3 [+6.0 without Garnett, Net -6.3]


2007: -2.0 [-2.0 without Howard, Net 0.0]
2008: -1.0 [-3.9 without Howard, Net +2.9]
2009: -6.5 [-5.5 without Howard, Net -1.0]
2010: -4.7 [-1.4 without Howard, Net -3.3]
2011: -5.1 [-2.4 without Howard, Net -2.7}

To be honest, I didn't think about it too much since it's bit of an extra work compiling the numbers from basket-ref since I don't have a stathead subscription, so thanks for compiling! And now I realized that pbpstats (it doesn't go back to 1997 though) makes that actually very easy .

By the where are you getting these numbers from? For example the 2010 rel tm drtg for Dwight looks off. Shouldn't change the big picture overview that +/- paints though.

Colbinii wrote:Here is what we get big picture.

Garnett [11 years]: -1.7 On-Court Drtg Per Season, +2.8 Off-Court Drtg Per Season, Net -4.5 On/Off Drtg
Howard [5 years]: -3.9 On-Court Drtg Per Season, -3.1 Off-Court Drtg Per Season, Net -0.8 On/Off Drtg

In other [actual] words, Garnett was taking bad defenses [Average of +2.8 Off-Court, which is around a 8,000 Minute Sample] and taking them to a good defense [-1.7 On-Court, 33,000 Minute Sample].

Howard was taking good defenses [-3.1 average Off-Court Drtg in around 5,000 Minute Sample] and taking them to a still good [borderline great] defense [-3.9 On-Court, 15,000 Minute Sample].

But, here is the thing. The years Garnett made his defenses good-to-great [1997, 1999, 2000, 2004], the defenses without Garnett were bad defenses [+2.4 Off-court rating].

I fail to see any argument for Dwight Howard in this comparison.

Pbpstats more or less confirm your numbers:
https://www.pbpstats.com/on-off/nba/team?Season=2001-02,2002-03,2003-04,2004-05,2005-06,2006-07&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason&TeamId=1610612750&PlayerId=708
https://www.pbpstats.com/on-off/nba/team?Season=2006-07,2Q007-08,2008-09,2009-10,2010-11&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason&TeamId=1610612753&PlayerId=2730
Garnett [2002:2007]: 107.470 off, 103.743 on, net: -3.73
Howard [2007:2011]: 104.397 off, 103.649 on, net: -0.75

However I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions that the the defences that Garnett and Dwight lead their respective teams were close: "good defense" for Garnett and " good [borderline great] defense " for Howard, at least for the years I pulled from pbpstats

Based on leave-average DRtg:
[2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011]
[104.5, 103.6, 102.9, 106.1, 106.2, 106.5, 107.5, 108.3, 107.6, 107.3]
[2002:2007]: 104.66 DRtg
[2007:2011]: 107.44 DRtg

MIN Garnett's [2002:2007] relative def when on: 104.66 - 103.743 = ~ -0.9
ORL Dwight's [2007:2011] relative def when on: 107.44 - 103.649 = ~ -3.8

I'm just simply selecting 2002:2007 as this covers Garnett's peak 2003/2004. It could be that this looks different if I add earlier years! 1997 +/- looks a bit sus, I meanJazz were -9.6 on defence when Hornacheck was on-court.. https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1997/on-off/

And even if we stick to your numbers, do you think impact scales linearly? Why is taking a -3.1 def team to -3.9 not just as impressive as +2.8 to -1.7?

Also here's the thing, in my opinion regarding +/-, I think it's definitely useful, but I'm skeptical as it's not really comparing apples-to-apples when you compare players from different teams. How can you account for line-up rotations for example?

For instance, what if the stints that Dwight played in were with offensively-inclined players while he is making up for their defensive deficiencies? Curry is often regarded as offensive impact GOAT, but his team's playoffs ORTg numbers are actually quite meh, but then people use to argument that it enables his team to play defensively-slanted lineups. How do we know this was not the inverse for Dwight? Maybe the backup players can hold their own defensively.

RAPM is nice and tries to take these line-up / rotations in account, but then again what can we really conclude from it? You get a value trying to allocate how much a player contributes to point margins of all the stints he played in. So once again can you really compare these numbers between players from different teams, if players don't occur/overlap in the same stints?


Also what are your toughts on Gobert if you ignore Howard for a minute?
https://www.pbpstats.com/on-off/nba/team?Season=2015-16,2016-17,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason&TeamId=1610612762&PlayerId=203497

WestGOAT wrote:

Colbinii wrote:Here is what we get big picture.

Garnett [11 years]: -1.7 On-Court Drtg Per Season, +2.8 Off-Court Drtg Per Season, Net -4.5 On/Off Drtg
Howard [5 years]: -3.9 On-Court Drtg Per Season, -3.1 Off-Court Drtg Per Season, Net -0.8 On/Off Drtg

In other [actual] words, Garnett was taking bad defenses [Average of +2.8 Off-Court, which is around a 8,000 Minute Sample] and taking them to a good defense [-1.7 On-Court, 33,000 Minute Sample].

Howard was taking good defenses [-3.1 average Off-Court Drtg in around 5,000 Minute Sample] and taking them to a still good [borderline great] defense [-3.9 On-Court, 15,000 Minute Sample].

But, here is the thing. The years Garnett made his defenses good-to-great [1997, 1999, 2000, 2004], the defenses without Garnett were bad defenses [+2.4 Off-court rating].

I fail to see any argument for Dwight Howard in this comparison.

Pbpstats more or less confirm your numbers:
https://www.pbpstats.com/on-off/nba/team?Season=2001-02,2002-03,2003-04,2004-05,2005-06,2006-07&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason&TeamId=1610612750&PlayerId=708
https://www.pbpstats.com/on-off/nba/team?Season=2006-07,2Q007-08,2008-09,2009-10,2010-11&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason&TeamId=1610612753&PlayerId=2730
Garnett [2002:2007]: 107.470 off, 103.743 on, net: -3.73
Howard [2007:2011]: 104.397 off, 103.649 on, net: -0.75

However I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions that the the defences that Garnett and Dwight lead their respective teams were close: "good defense" for Garnett and " good [borderline great] defense " for Howard, at least for the years I pulled from pbpstats

Based on leave-average DRtg:
[2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011]
[104.5, 103.6, 102.9, 106.1, 106.2, 106.5, 107.5, 108.3, 107.6, 107.3]
[2002:2007]: 104.66 DRtg
[2007:2011]: 107.44 DRtg

MIN Garnett's [2002:2007] relative def when on: 104.66 - 103.743 = ~ -0.9
ORL Dwight's [2007:2011] relative def when on: 107.44 - 103.649 = ~ -3.8

I'm just simply selecting 2002:2007 as this covers Garnett's peak 2003/2004. It could be that this looks different if I add earlier years! 1997 +/- looks a bit sus, I meanJazz were -9.6 on defence when Hornacheck was on-court.. https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1997/on-off/

And even if we stick to your numbers, do you think impact scales linearly? Why is taking a -3.1 def team to -3.9 not just as impressive as +2.8 to -1.7?

Also here's the thing, in my opinion regarding +/-, I think it's definitely useful, but I'm skeptical as it's not really comparing apples-to-apples when you compare players from different teams. How can you account for line-up rotations for example?

For instance, what if the stints that Dwight played in were with offensively-inclined players while he is making up for their defensive deficiencies? Curry is often regarded as offensive impact GOAT, but his team's playoffs ORTg numbers are actually quite meh, but then people use to argument that it enables his team to play defensively-slanted lineups. How do we know this was not the inverse for Dwight? Maybe the backup players can hold their own defensively.

RAPM is nice and tries to take these line-up / rotations in account, but then again what can we really conclude from it? You get a value trying to allocate how much a player contributes to point margins of all the stints he played in. So once again can you really compare these numbers between players from different teams, if players don't occur/overlap in the same stints?


Also what are your toughts on Gobert if you ignore Howard for a minute?
https://www.pbpstats.com/on-off/nba/team?Season=2015-16,2016-17,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason&TeamId=1610612762&PlayerId=203497

Precisely. When you add to that, the fact that Garnett played 40 minutes a game, it becomes even more ridiculous. There are so many variables involved and so much noise that it becomes a complete nonsense to use as a tool for comparison. If you are playing nearly 41 minutes a game and you have the 16th best defense in the league, you cannot attribute the poor defense to the 7 and a half minutes of bench players. Dwight's teammates were just as bad as KG's.

In 01/02 KG had Rasho, Joe Smith, Billups and Wally Szczerbiak starting with him. Rasho and Billups both started on number one defenses for the Spurs and Pistons not long after leaving. Joe Smith was a decent defensive forward. Wally was not a great defender but not entirely horrible. That defense was 15th in the league.

In 08/09 Howard had Hedo, Rashard Lewis, Jameer Nelson and Courtney Lee starting with him. It was the number one defense in the league.

Let's invoke the principle of Occam's Razor here. Which player had the greatest defensive impact? It is pretty simple really. We can try to conduct statistical gymnastics to try to find some hidden meaning but there is none. A dominant rim protector will always have a greater impact than the best help defender. They always have, and they always will, because they have the most impact on the offense by minimising the highest percentage shots.

Red Beast wrote:

WestGOAT wrote:

Colbinii wrote:Here is what we get big picture.

Garnett [11 years]: -1.7 On-Court Drtg Per Season, +2.8 Off-Court Drtg Per Season, Net -4.5 On/Off Drtg
Howard [5 years]: -3.9 On-Court Drtg Per Season, -3.1 Off-Court Drtg Per Season, Net -0.8 On/Off Drtg

In other [actual] words, Garnett was taking bad defenses [Average of +2.8 Off-Court, which is around a 8,000 Minute Sample] and taking them to a good defense [-1.7 On-Court, 33,000 Minute Sample].

Howard was taking good defenses [-3.1 average Off-Court Drtg in around 5,000 Minute Sample] and taking them to a still good [borderline great] defense [-3.9 On-Court, 15,000 Minute Sample].

But, here is the thing. The years Garnett made his defenses good-to-great [1997, 1999, 2000, 2004], the defenses without Garnett were bad defenses [+2.4 Off-court rating].

I fail to see any argument for Dwight Howard in this comparison.

Pbpstats more or less confirm your numbers:
https://www.pbpstats.com/on-off/nba/team?Season=2001-02,2002-03,2003-04,2004-05,2005-06,2006-07&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason&TeamId=1610612750&PlayerId=708
https://www.pbpstats.com/on-off/nba/team?Season=2006-07,2Q007-08,2008-09,2009-10,2010-11&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason&TeamId=1610612753&PlayerId=2730
Garnett [2002:2007]: 107.470 off, 103.743 on, net: -3.73
Howard [2007:2011]: 104.397 off, 103.649 on, net: -0.75

However I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions that the the defences that Garnett and Dwight lead their respective teams were close: "good defense" for Garnett and " good [borderline great] defense " for Howard, at least for the years I pulled from pbpstats

Based on leave-average DRtg:
[2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011]
[104.5, 103.6, 102.9, 106.1, 106.2, 106.5, 107.5, 108.3, 107.6, 107.3]
[2002:2007]: 104.66 DRtg
[2007:2011]: 107.44 DRtg

MIN Garnett's [2002:2007] relative def when on: 104.66 - 103.743 = ~ -0.9
ORL Dwight's [2007:2011] relative def when on: 107.44 - 103.649 = ~ -3.8

I'm just simply selecting 2002:2007 as this covers Garnett's peak 2003/2004. It could be that this looks different if I add earlier years! 1997 +/- looks a bit sus, I meanJazz were -9.6 on defence when Hornacheck was on-court.. https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1997/on-off/

And even if we stick to your numbers, do you think impact scales linearly? Why is taking a -3.1 def team to -3.9 not just as impressive as +2.8 to -1.7?

Also here's the thing, in my opinion regarding +/-, I think it's definitely useful, but I'm skeptical as it's not really comparing apples-to-apples when you compare players from different teams. How can you account for line-up rotations for example?

For instance, what if the stints that Dwight played in were with offensively-inclined players while he is making up for their defensive deficiencies? Curry is often regarded as offensive impact GOAT, but his team's playoffs ORTg numbers are actually quite meh, but then people use to argument that it enables his team to play defensively-slanted lineups. How do we know this was not the inverse for Dwight? Maybe the backup players can hold their own defensively.

RAPM is nice and tries to take these line-up / rotations in account, but then again what can we really conclude from it? You get a value trying to allocate how much a player contributes to point margins of all the stints he played in. So once again can you really compare these numbers between players from different teams, if players don't occur/overlap in the same stints?


Also what are your toughts on Gobert if you ignore Howard for a minute?
https://www.pbpstats.com/on-off/nba/team?Season=2015-16,2016-17,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason&TeamId=1610612762&PlayerId=203497

Precisely. When you add to that, the fact that Garnett played 40 minutes a game, it becomes even more ridiculous. There are so many variables involved and so much noise that it becomes a complete nonsense to use as a tool for comparison. If you are playing nearly 41 minutes a game and you have the 16th best defense in the league, you cannot attribute the poor defense to the 7 and a half minutes of bench players. Dwight's teammates were just as bad as KG's.

In 01/02 KG had Rasho, Joe Smith, Billups and Wally Szczerbiak starting with him. Rasho and Billups both started on number one defenses for the Spurs and Pistons not long after leaving. Joe Smith was a decent defensive forward. Wally was not a great defender but not entirely horrible. That defense was 15th in the league.

In 08/09 Howard had Hedo, Rashard Lewis, Jameer Nelson and Courtney Lee starting with him. It was the number one defense in the league.

Let's invoke the principle of Occam's Razor here. Which player had the greatest defensive impact? It is pretty simple really. We can try to conduct statistical gymnastics to try to find some hidden meaning but there is none. A dominant rim protector will always have a greater impact than the best help defender. They always have, and they always will, because they have the most impact on the offense by minimising the highest percentage shots.

I'd say colibini's confidence is excessive but your approach is a more "ridiculous" one, requirING significantly more gymnastics(not to mention a comical misuse of occam's razor...). There is there is no reason to assume bias or variance goes in either direction, that is why we look at results. If you are concerned about low minutes per game, then you can take KG out of the picture entirely and look at full games. Or we can how the players in question replicate these results in a different context(say...like KG's influence in Boston?)

Dwight rim-protection> kg rim protection+help is very much the opposite of an example of "occam's razor" btw. You're sneaking in an assumption which itself would need to be justified thus complicating matters. "Occam's razor" would be to look at rhe "statistical gymnastics" which seem to favor KG.

That 2nd phrase is also nonsense. Taking a stat at face-value is not gymnastics. Feel free to argue that there are better approaches or that the interpretation is dubious, but there aren't extra leaps there. The term you are looking for is "reductive" which of course applies more strongly to "there is noise -> this is meaningless".

"Rim-protection is super-valuable" is a sentence which is defended on similar grounds to what colibini is doing with kg/dwight(just on a larger scale). That said, I think nba history would support KG-esque defensive profiles(Russell, Hakeem, Draymond, Giannis, AD) being more valuable.

I too find it odd that KG has never anchored a top 5 defense in his prime and I'm skeptical that it should be hand-waved as easily as it is on this forum to bad defensive teammates.

Peregrine01 wrote:I too find it odd that KG has never anchored a top 5 defense in his prime and I'm skeptical that it should be hand-waved as easily as it is on this forum to bad defensive teammates.

He did in 2008

Colbinii wrote:

Peregrine01 wrote:I too find it odd that KG has never anchored a top 5 defense in his prime and I'm skeptical that it should be hand-waved as easily as it is on this forum to bad defensive teammates.

He did in 2008

Sorry, I meant in Minny.

As Colbini said above, I think this goes to KG by a lot. I'd have to think before I post an actual list.

Peregrine01 wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

Peregrine01 wrote:I too find it odd that KG has never anchored a top 5 defense in his prime and I'm skeptical that it should be hand-waved as easily as it is on this forum to bad defensive teammates.

He did in 2008

Sorry, I meant in Minny.

Why is it odd? Go look at the teams who were Top 5 and compare the casts to that of the Timberwolves.

Take 2004 for example, Spurs has Horry/Bowen/Rasho/Manu/Hedo around Duncan as + defenders with only Malik and Parker as - defenders.

Timberwolves otoh had Trent/Cassell/Hoiberg/Sprewell as bad-to-below-average defenders with Hassell/Madsen/Johnson as + defenders.

Colbinii wrote:

Peregrine01 wrote:

Colbinii wrote:
He did in 2008

Sorry, I meant in Minny.

Why is it odd? Go look at the teams who were Top 5 and compare the casts to that of the Timberwolves.

Take 2004 for example, Spurs has Horry/Bowen/Rasho/Manu/Hedo around Duncan as + defenders with only Malik and Parker as - defenders.

Timberwolves otoh had Trent/Cassell/Hoiberg/Sprewell as bad-to-below-average defenders with Hassell/Madsen/Johnson as + defenders.

The two guys mentioned in this thread - Dwight and Gobert - both anchored top-5 defenses without much notable defenders either.

OhayoKD wrote:I'd say colibini's confidence is excessive but your approach is a more "ridiculous" one, requirING significantly more gymnastics(not to mention a comical misuse of occam's razor...). There is there is no reason to assume bias or variance goes in either direction, that is why we look at results. If you are concerned about low minutes per game, then you can take KG out of the picture entirely and look at full games. Or we can how the players in question replicate these results in a different context(say...like KG's influence in Boston?)

Dwight rim-protection> kg rim protection+help is very much the opposite of an example of "occam's razor" btw. You're sneaking in an assumption which itself would need to be justified thus complicating matters. "Occam's razor" would be to look at rhe "statistical gymnastics" which seem to favor KG.

That 2nd phrase is also nonsense. Taking a stat at face-value is not gymnastics. Feel free to argue that there are better approaches or that the interpretation is dubious, but there aren't extra leaps there. The term you are looking for is "reductive" which of course applies more strongly to "there is noise -> this is meaningless".

"Rim-protection is super-valuable" is a sentence which is defended on similar grounds to what colibini is doing with kg/dwight(just on a larger scale). That said, I think nba history would support KG-esque defensive profiles(Russell, Hakeem, Draymond, Giannis, AD) being more valuable.

No, you don't understand Occam's Razor. I provided a simple context regarding two players who were the best defenders in their team. One where the defense was the best in the league, the other that came 15th.
The term I am looking for is not "reductive", which means "presenting a subject or problem in a simplified form". I don't believe it is reductive, I believe it is wrong. That is a very different thing. I am also not saying that taking a stat at face value is gymnastics, I'm saying that there are some that try to defend KG's record of mediocre and poor defenses in Minnesota by using stats that really are not suitable to be used as a basis for comparison of players. KG had 12 years of different contexts in Minnesota and had mediocre and poor defenses the entire time. That can't be waved away. It means something. Remember, I'm not saying he isn't a great defender, just not as great as the great rim protectors.

Are you really arguing that elite rim protection is not better than good rim protection and defensive help? The evidence is pretty overwhelming that it is.

If you think that KG has the same defensive profile as "Russell, Hakeem, Draymond, Giannis, AD", then you haven't watched him play. They are all significantly stronger which made most of them better post defenders. I would argue that they are all better rim protectors. Russell and Hakeem would be two tiers higher as rim protectors.

Peregrine01 wrote:I too find it odd that KG has never anchored a top 5 defense in his prime and I'm skeptical that it should be hand-waved as easily as it is on this forum to bad defensive teammates.

is "hey the defense got a lot worse without him" handwaving? Seems the real issue is the oppositr where people handwave the delta and then handwave boston...

OhayoKD wrote:

Peregrine01 wrote:I too find it odd that KG has never anchored a top 5 defense in his prime and I'm skeptical that it should be hand-waved as easily as it is on this forum to bad defensive teammates.

is "hey the defense got a lot worse without him" handwaving? Seems the real issue is the oppositr where people handwave the delta and then handwave boston...

No, the real issue is that he never anchored a top 5 defense in his prime. How is that explained? No one is saying he is not a great defensive player. We all know he is great. My view is that, the best of the best don't go their entire prime with mediocre and bad defenses. It is easy to explain Boston, he is a great player, that played in a revolutionary new defensive system created by a defensive genius with some very good defensive teammates. That is really easy to understand. What is difficult to understand is why he could never anchor a great defense without all of this when other great defenders could.

]

Red Beast wrote:No, you don't understand Occam's Razor. I provided a simple context regarding two players who were the best defenders in their team. One where the defense was the best in the league, the other that came 15th.

Yeah, "best defenders in their team" is also an assumption. If you want to commit to literally just ranking defenders on how good the defense they happen to be in on is, whatever. It stops being occam's razor when you do anything else. KG defense with him this, kg defense without him this is not complicated. You're just using fancy vernacular to compensate.

The term I am looking for is not "reductive", which means "presenting a subject or problem in a simplified form". I don't believe it is reductive, I believe it is wrong.

If it is wrong, it would be because "it is presenting a subject or problem in a simplified form". Indeed your assertion that noise invalidates it, is very much a case about reductivity.

Are you really arguing that elite rim protection is not better than good rim protection and defensive help? The evidence is pretty overwhelming that it is.

Please do present your overwhelming evidence that KG level "elite" rim protection paired with all-time versatility and great defensive IQ does worse than gobert level "elite" rim protection. The best rim protectors in the current league(I can post the tracking data if you want) are embid and gobert. Both of whom get outimpacted and lead worse playoff and/or regular season defenses than Giannis and Draymond and Anthony Davis. Was Lebron a kg-level rim protector when he anchored -5 and -3 playoff defenses in his 30's?

I'm going to guess you haven't actually looked at anything that can seriously considered "evidence" given you literally tried to dismiss "make defense better" as noise.

If you think that KG has the same defensive profile as "Russell, Hakeem, Draymond, Giannis, AD", then you haven't watched him play. They are all significantly stronger which made most of them better post defenders. I would argue that they are all better rim protectors. Russell and Hakeem would be two tiers higher as rim protectors.

So when he, in his 30's, sapped of that mobility and switchyness in minesotta, anchored all-time playoff defenses with great impact signals you are attributing that to...the power of friendship? unicorn juice?

Draymond is also not "significantly stronger"...

OhayoKD wrote:

Red Beast wrote:No, you don't understand Occam's Razor. I provided a simple context regarding two players who were the best defenders in their team. One where the defense was the best in the league, the other that came 15th.

Yeah, "best defenders in their team" is also an assumption. If you want to commit to literally just ranking defenders on how good the defense they happen to be in on is, whatever. It stops being occam's razor when you do anything else. KG defense with him this, kg defense without him this is not complicated. You're just using fancy vernacular to compensate.

Except, I didn't do that. I showed an example of the two players and their respective teammates. Are you saying that Dwight and KG weren't the best defender in those respective teams?

OhayoKD wrote:

Red Beast wrote:The term I am looking for is not "reductive", which means "presenting a subject or problem in a simplified form". I don't believe it is reductive, I believe it is wrong.

If it is wrong, it would be because "it is presenting a subject or problem in a simplified form". Indeed your assertion that noise invalidates it, is very much a case about reductivity.

This is a pointless argument, but I'll explain. Reductive would be saying that Steve Kerr is a better three-point shooter than Steph Curry because he has a better 3pt%. The stat measures accuracy of 3pt shooting but doesn't account for how the shot is taken or volume of shots taken. The stat is very relevant but needs some context.

The stat being referred to measures the difference in defense of a specific team when a player is playing compared to when he is not. Which has to consider: Who is he playing with when he is on the court? Who is on the court when he is not playing? Who is he playing against? Who is the team playing against when he is not on the court? What is the game scenario when he is, or isn't, playing (garbage time)? When someone is playing 40 minutes a night, the off sample is so small that it becomes of little value. Now we have to consider all of these factors for the other player, who is also playing large minutes. It quickly becomes apparent that using this measure to compare the two players is not reductive but should not be used at all as a serious measure. In other words, it is wrong.

OhayoKD wrote:

Red Beast wrote:Are you really arguing that elite rim protection is not better than good rim protection and defensive help? The evidence is pretty overwhelming that it is.

Please do present your overwhelming evidence that KG level "elite" rim protection paired with all-time versatility and great defensive IQ does worse than gobert level "elite" rim protection. The best rim protectors in the current league(I can post the tracking data if you want) are embid and gobert. Both of whom get outimpacted and lead worse playoff and/or regular season defenses than Giannis and Draymond and Anthony Davis. Was Lebron a kg-level rim protector when he anchored -5 and -3 playoff defenses in his 30's?

I'm going to guess you haven't actually looked at anything that can seriously considered "evidence" given you literally tried to dismiss "make defense better" as noise.

Firstly, KG has never provided elite rim protection. You are now using a reductive argument. Embid has already anchored two top five defenses in 6 years. This year he had the number 8 ranked defense with Harden, Harris, Melton and Tucker as teammates. Gobert has had four top five defenses in nine years of significant minutes. These players don't help your cause.

OhayoKD wrote:

Red Beast wrote:If you think that KG has the same defensive profile as "Russell, Hakeem, Draymond, Giannis, AD", then you haven't watched him play. They are all significantly stronger which made most of them better post defenders. I would argue that they are all better rim protectors. Russell and Hakeem would be two tiers higher as rim protectors.

So when he, in his 30's, sapped of that mobility and switchyness in minesotta, anchored all-time playoff defenses with great impact signals you are attributing that to...the power of friendship? unicorn juice?

Draymond is also not "significantly stronger"...

Again, KG is a great defensive player. He was a key component of the defense. To say he anchored it would be over egging the pudding. That defense needs multiple people to do their job and they had a mix of good and excellent defensive players in the team. He certainly wasn't the primary rim protector, that was Perkins. The main factor was Thibodeau. Remember after he left Boston in 2010, he turned the Bulls defense from the 11th ranked to number one defense in the league.

Yes, Draymond is significantly stronger than KG. That is why Draymond can matchup against centers while KG rarely did until his lack of mobility forced him to move to the position.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2w2br9rN88DDes1THQMDTm

This episode only goes back to 08, but it might help you extrapolate just how good KG could have been on defense, if in a better situation earlier.