RealGM

Putting aside era considerations, which had the better career in their era?

Sid had the better defensive reputation with two DPOYs. He was also the more efficient scorer relative to his peers (particularly to other guards of his day) while averaging 20 ppg on teams that spread their scoring around more than Kawhi's more star-centric offenses. His weakest argument is playoff impact. While he shut down some star guards in the playoffs (DJ, Birdsong), others had strong playoffs against him (Toney). And, he couldn't carry his team past both the superteams in his conference as Boston had Bird, McHale, Parish, Dennis Johnson, etc. and Philly had Erving, Moses, Cheeks, Toney, Bobby Jones, etc. Even when they beat Boston one year, they lost to Philly in the ECF and never made a finals.

Kawhi has the playoff chops from the title in Toronto. He scores more pure volume than Moncrief and played more seasons. Also a great defender as well as a very strong scorer though, unlike Moncrief, his best seasons defensively were not concurrent with his best offensive seasons. He also spaces the floor more (though roughly equivalent in that regard relative to era peers). He has more size and is more capable of playing the 3 as well as the 2 sometimes even covering 1-4, though Sid did switch to cover both PGs and SFs.

Who do you have as greater for their era?

Kawhi.

I would have Kawhi right behind LeBron, Curry, Durant and CP3 [This one is close] for the (late) Heatles/Warriors era [Curry era?].

For Sid, his entire prime is basically the 1980s, which puts him behind Bird, Magic, Kareem, Moses, Isiah. Technically he can get the nod over Dr J, Gervin, Barkley and Jordan since those 4 all split the decade.

I can't imagine an argument for Moncrief. Kawhi has better accolades and blows him away statistically.

All-Star selections
Sid: 5 (two starts)
Kawhi: 5 (five starts)

All-NBA selections
Sid: 5 (one 1st Team, four 2nd Team)
Kawhi: 5 (three 1st Team, two 2nd Team)

All-Defense selections
Sid: 5 (four 1st Team)
Kawhi: 7 (three 1st Team)

Major Awards
Sid: 2x DPOY
Kawhi: 2x Finals MVP, 2x DPOY, 1x All-Star MVP (for whatever that counts)

Prime BPM (seasons bounded by first and last AS selection)
Sid: 4.8 (1982-1986)
Kawhi: 8.5 (2016-2021)

Career VORP
Sid: 33.1
Kawhi: 43.9

Career Playoff VORP
Sid: 3.3
Kawhi: 12.5

Kawhi has more regular season points, rebounds, steals and blocks despite playing 139 fewer career games. Kawhi more than doubles up Sid in playoff points, rebounds, steals and blocks (also beats him in assists, though not by double). Plus Kawhi has two rings, both as his team's best player. And Kawhi isn't even done yet, he could play a few more seasons and increase his lead in all statistical categories.

penbeast0 wrote:Sid had the better defensive reputation with two DPOYs.

Kawhi also has 2 DPOY awards and is widely considered among the best, if not the best, wing defender ever. I don't hear anyone ever bring up Moncrief's name in discussions for best guard defender nor do I think he has a credible case over guys like Frazier and Kidd. This statement just feels blatantly not true to me.

The scoring part right after also seem worded in a way to make Moncrief look better than he was. Sure he was more efficient relative to his era but barely and on lower volume, Kawhi also stepped up his scoring consistently in the play-offs, while Moncrief only has one post-season where he averaged over 20 PPG despite doing the same in 4 seperate regular seasons.

Are we also not going to mention Moncrief's playmaking being about as valuable as Kawhi's despite being a combo guard who spent some seasons running point for the Bucks?

Looking at the last top 100 from 3 years ago, Kawhi was already in the top 50 and Moncrief got in halfway in the 80s. This just doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison to me tbh unless I'm reading the question wrong?

What's the argument for Moncrief? He doesn't even have a noticeable avaliability advantage. Over KAWHI LEONARD!

Fair enough. Sid btw is, or was, frequently considered the greatest guard defender in NBA history for his short prime. I considered the two similar because (a) they both had abbreviated careers, (b) both were truly great defenders, (c) both were very strong offensive players. I realize Kawhi is higher rated, I just wanted to see if it's mainly because of era differential or his superior playoff performances so I removed one variable.

I always wonder with 80s DPOYs how much of it was that the voters hadn't sorted out guard defender vs big defender impact just yet. Moncrief, Cooper, Alvin Robertson, Jordan...

And then over the subsequent three and a half decades... Gary Payton in 96, Artest in 04, Kawhi in 15 and 16, Marcus Smart in 2022 and everyone else is a big.

Alvin Robertson is an easy one; that was all Steals Per Game hypnosis. And to some extent, the same was true of Jordan with his exciting weakside blocks and lane-picking and all that. It's tough to crap on guys like Moncrief and Cooper and Payton who were all outstanding defenders, though, so it remains an interesting thought to me.

tsherkin wrote:I always wonder with 80s DPOYs how much of it was that the voters hadn't sorted out guard defender vs big defender impact just yet. Moncrief, Cooper, Alvin Robertson, Jordan...

And then over the subsequent three and a half decades... Gary Payton in 96, Artest in 04, Kawhi in 15 and 16, Marcus Smart in 2022 and everyone else is a big.

Alvin Robertson is an easy one; that was all Steals Per Game hypnosis. And to some extent, the same was true of Jordan with his exciting weakside blocks and lane-picking and all that. It's tough to crap on guys like Moncrief and Cooper and Payton who were all outstanding defenders, though, so it remains an interesting thought to me.

I think much of it had come down to that.

Also, most people watch the player with the ball. The player with the ball is usually guarded by a guard, so it makes sense that they are the most eye catching.

HeartBreakKid wrote:Also, most people watch the player with the ball. The player with the ball is usually guarded by a guard, so it makes sense that they are the most eye catching.

For sure, that makes sense. It's just tough to look backward at those now, you know? Especially for Jordan, who won his while rocking over 24 FGA/g, and it's like... No. No he was not the most high-impact defender in the league while doing that, not while Mark Eaton was anchoring the best defense in the league that same year.

The problem with Eaton is that while people talk about how you can gameplan to limit Rudy Gobert's impact in the playoffs, that's much easier for Eaton who was one of the slowest players in the NBA and who had virtually on skills on the other side of the ball so you couldn't use him as a roll man very successfully or do anything but get him bunnies off putbacks or having his man leave to double the Stockton/Malone pnr attack. So, while Eaton may have had regular season impact, you can see how they might discount his postseason impact as an incredibly one dimensional player and vote for a Moncrief type who you knew could impact any opponent.

penbeast0 wrote:The problem with Eaton is that while people talk about how you can gameplan to limit Rudy Gobert's impact in the playoffs, that's much easier for Eaton who was one of the slowest players in the NBA and who had virtually on skills on the other side of the ball so you couldn't use him as a roll man very successfully or do anything but get him bunnies off putbacks or having his man leave to double the Stockton/Malone pnr attack. So, while Eaton may have had regular season impact, you can see how they might discount his postseason impact as an incredibly one dimensional player and vote for a Moncrief type who you knew could impact any opponent.

Today, that makes sense. Then, less so, particularly since Utah still had a top-4 defense in the 88 playoffs, and it wasn't better because they got whacked about by the 88 Lakers in the second round. Moncrief's utility is specific to a given roster construction, too, so his value is no less limited in that regard... and Eaton could still at least exert palpable pressure in-era by lumbering around near the rim. You couldn't really gameplan Eaton out of things in the 80s because teams weren't spamming 3s yet and any time you got within 10 or 12 feet, that reach was there.

Kawhi and it's not close. Adjust for era and it's a landslide to Kawhi.

I only saw the first reply, but I'm guessing most are following suit.

And I'd have to agree: it's Kawhi, and not overly close, imo. I was never as sold on Moncrief's defense as his reputation/accolades would suggest. I don't think he peaked as high on that end as Kawhi (though he may well have been more consistent on defense during their respective primes).

But Kawhi is a SO MUCH better offensive player [really not close at all, imo], that that seals the deal for me. It's not like Moncrief's longevity is really any better, either.


EDIT: Era considerations then hedge things slightly further in Kawhi's favour [for me]; consequently I have Moncrief at least 50 places behind him on my ATL.

trex_8063 wrote:I only saw the first reply, but I'm guessing most are following suit.

And I'd have to agree: it's Kawhi, and not overly close, imo. I was never as sold on Moncrief's defense as his reputation/accolades would suggest. I don't think he peaked as high on that end as Kawhi (though he may well have been more consistent on defense during their respective primes).

But Kawhi is a SO MUCH better offensive player [really not close at all, imo], that that seals the deal for me. It's not like Moncrief's longevity is really any better, either.


EDIT: Era considerations then hedge things slightly further in Kawhi's favour [for me]; consequently I have Moncrief at least 50 places behind him on my ATL.

Not sure what Kawhi did a lot better offensively relative to era. Looking at TS Add, our best era relative measure of scoring ability, Kawhi has 4 seasons in his career over 100 TS Add. Moncreif has 5. But then you look at the numbers and Sid has the best (201), Kawhi the 2nd and 3rd best, Sid the 4th, 5th, and 6th best seasons.

Sid was the better ballhandler and offensive rebounder (though some of that is era), Kawhi more shooting range (though probably not as much when adjusted for era), I'm not seeing Kawhi being "SO MUCH better" offensively. I think Kawhi's only real case is playoff performance.

penbeast0 wrote:Not sure what Kawhi did a lot better offensively relative to era. Looking at TS Add, our best era relative measure of scoring ability, Kawhi has 4 seasons in his career over 100 TS Add. Moncreif has 5. But then you look at the numbers and Sid has the best (201), Kawhi the 2nd and 3rd best, Sid the 4th, 5th, and 6th best seasons.

Sid was the better ballhandler and offensive rebounder (though some of that is era), Kawhi more shooting range (though probably not as much when adjusted for era), I'm not seeing Kawhi being "SO MUCH better" offensively. I think Kawhi's only real case is playoff performance.

I suspect he's talking about scoring volume. Moncrief topped out as a 22.5 ppg guy while Kawhi was up around 25-28 ppg. 82-86 (his AS years), Moncrief was a 110 TS+ guy. Kawhi's a 109 guy on his career, 108 from 2016-2021 (his AS years). +4.1 OEPM guy in 2019 for Toronto en route to the title.

It's possible he's a little better on O. He's certainly the slightly-better FT shooter and obviously his 3pt range was superior. It behooves one to remember that Moncrief was a .527 FTr guy in the 80s, which is somewhere between absurd and insane, and that was his competitive leverage as far as offense goes. There isn't a huge difference in their 2FG%, either.

So I'm actually with pen here. As scorers, they aren't too far off, and for overall offensive impact, I'm not seeing a huge difference.

penbeast0 wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:I only saw the first reply, but I'm guessing most are following suit.

And I'd have to agree: it's Kawhi, and not overly close, imo. I was never as sold on Moncrief's defense as his reputation/accolades would suggest. I don't think he peaked as high on that end as Kawhi (though he may well have been more consistent on defense during their respective primes).

But Kawhi is a SO MUCH better offensive player [really not close at all, imo], that that seals the deal for me. It's not like Moncrief's longevity is really any better, either.


EDIT: Era considerations then hedge things slightly further in Kawhi's favour [for me]; consequently I have Moncrief at least 50 places behind him on my ATL.

Not sure what Kawhi did a lot better offensively relative to era. Looking at TS Add, our best era relative measure of scoring ability, Kawhi has 4 seasons in his career over 100 TS Add. Moncreif has 5. But then you look at the numbers and Sid has the best (201), Kawhi the 2nd and 3rd best, Sid the 4th, 5th, and 6th best seasons.

Sid was the better ballhandler and offensive rebounder (though some of that is era), Kawhi more shooting range (though probably not as much when adjusted for era), I'm not seeing Kawhi being "SO MUCH better" offensively. I think Kawhi's only real case is playoff performance.

Semantically, I may have overstated the gap a little, thinking the gap in shooting efficiency was bigger than it actually is. That said......


Regarding TS Add, there are a couple things you're not considering [which I believe you should]:

1) It's a cumulative stat. In the 100+ seasons for Moncrief, the fewest games he played in any of those seasons was 73. In Kawhi's 100+ years, he played as many as 74 just ONCE, and otherwise played 72 or fewer. Not that I want to reward him for his lack of durability, but it should also be noted that in some instances the fewer games is not entirely his body's fault: he's got THREE seasons in his career that were shortened (by 16 games in '12, due to player strike; by 10 games in each of '20 and '21 as result of Covid); Moncrief doesn't have ANY such seasons in his career.

Kawhi trails Sidney by fewer than 70 TS Add, despite having played 139 fewer games (fwiw, if we pro-rate Kawhi's figures for the number of games the season was shortened in '12, '20, and '21, he closes the gap in career TS Add by nearly half).
Anyway, Kawhi's TS Add/game is +1.5874, vs +1.3897 for Moncrief......which, a gap of +0.2 per game is not at all insignificant in a stat for which we view +100 for an entire season to be really really good.


2) I believe one also needs to look at scoring volume.
Someone scoring a severely anemic 12 pts/100 possessions at +0.3% rTS will end up with a marginally higher TS Add than a 1st-option scorer averaging 35 pts/100 poss at +0.1% rTS (assuming the same playing time). But I'd be reluctant to call them similar-tiered scorers.
For real/concrete example of what I'm talking about: Ben Wallace had a TS Add of +14.1 in '99.......that's better than all but TWO seasons of Allen Iverson's career. So was he a better scorer that year than those other 11 Iverson seasons?

Now, that's a deliberately hyperbolic example to illustrate the point; obviously the gap in volume between Moncrief and Kawhi is smaller........but it is there.
Moncrief averaged 24.7 pts/100 for his career (vs. 31.2 for Kawhi). Sid doesn't have a single season that matches Kawhi's career average, and only ONE year where he's even within 3 pts of Kawhi's career mark.

So when I'm seeing a TS Add comparison that looks close----NOTE: You arbitrarily used the +100 cut-off and noted Sid has 4 of the top six [5 of the top seven, actually] seasons between them in TS Add. But if, for example, I chose 40+ as the cut-off [or 50+ if using Kawhi's pro-rated figures], Kawhi has 10 of the top 17 seasons between them (and 7 of the top 12 if using the pro-rated figures [he'd have 8 of the top 14 even without])---I want to take notice of relevant gaps in scoring volume.


So I don't think the scoring comparison favours Sid in the way you're saying.
To be fair, Sid does do a little more assisting than Kawhi in the rs (5.8/100 possessions, vs 4.7 for Kawhi). Though Kawhi rebounds a lot more, fwiw (not on the offensive glass, though I think that's largely a product of era: league avg OREB% in '85 [middle of Sid's career] was 32.9%; in '17 [middle of Kawhi's career] was 23.3%).


However, then I'd also look at turnover economy. And that is not at all close.
Kawhi's career rs Modified TOV% is 6.47%. To put that in perspective, Jordan's career mTOV% was 6.54%. Kawhi is in a GOAT-tier among wings.
Moncrief's was 8.48%.


And then you sort of hit the nail on the head with mention of playoffs. If it is fair to say the offensive comparison gets blown wide open, this is where it happens.....

In the playoffs, per 100 possessions, Moncrief suffers the following changes: -1.7 pts (-1.8% TS), -0.9 ast, and +0.3 tov (also -0.2 reb). mTOV% of 9.83% (that's just about Pete Maravich territory).

Kawhi, per 100 possession, sees the following changes in the playoffs: -0.3 pts (but +1.9% TS), -0.5 ast, +0.1 tov (+1.1 reb, fwiw). mTOV% of 7.23%.

So whereas Sidney sees small to moderate declines straight across the board (everything), Kawhi sees signficantly smaller ticks downward in pts, ast, and turnover economy, while seeing significant INCREASES in shooting efficiency and rebounding.



SUMMARY:
I view Kawhi as the slightly lesser playmaker, though the slight better scorer (strictly in terms of volume and shooting efficiency), and with FAR better turnover economy. He's the better rebounder, too.

And that's in the rs.

In the playoffs, I view him as the substantially better scorer (in terms of volume and efficiency--->neither of these things at all close in the playoffs), the much better rebounder, only slightly lesser passer/playmaker, and even further ahead in turnover economy.

trex_8063 wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:I only saw the first reply, but I'm guessing most are following suit.

And I'd have to agree: it's Kawhi, and not overly close, imo. I was never as sold on Moncrief's defense as his reputation/accolades would suggest. I don't think he peaked as high on that end as Kawhi (though he may well have been more consistent on defense during their respective primes).

But Kawhi is a SO MUCH better offensive player [really not close at all, imo], that that seals the deal for me. It's not like Moncrief's longevity is really any better, either.


EDIT: Era considerations then hedge things slightly further in Kawhi's favour [for me]; consequently I have Moncrief at least 50 places behind him on my ATL.

Not sure what Kawhi did a lot better offensively relative to era. Looking at TS Add, our best era relative measure of scoring ability, Kawhi has 4 seasons in his career over 100 TS Add. Moncreif has 5. But then you look at the numbers and Sid has the best (201), Kawhi the 2nd and 3rd best, Sid the 4th, 5th, and 6th best seasons.

Sid was the better ballhandler and offensive rebounder (though some of that is era), Kawhi more shooting range (though probably not as much when adjusted for era), I'm not seeing Kawhi being "SO MUCH better" offensively. I think Kawhi's only real case is playoff performance.

Semantically, I may have overstated the gap a little, thinking the gap in shooting efficiency was bigger than it actually is. That said......


Regarding TS Add, there are a couple things you're not considering [which I believe you should]:

1) It's a cumulative stat. In the 100+ seasons for Moncrief, the fewest games he played in any of those seasons was 73. In Kawhi's 100+ years, he played as many as 74 just ONCE, and otherwise played 72 or fewer. Not that I want to reward him for his lack of durability, but it should also be noted that in some instances the fewer games is not entirely his body's fault: he's got THREE seasons in his career that were shortened (by 16 games in '12, due to player strike; by 10 games in each of '20 and '21 as result of Covid); Moncrief doesn't have ANY such seasons in his career.

Kawhi trails Sidney by fewer than 70 TS Add, despite having played 139 fewer games (fwiw, if we pro-rate Kawhi's figures for the number of games the season was shortened in '12, '20, and '21, he closes the gap in career TS Add by nearly half).
Anyway, Kawhi's TS Add/game is +1.5874, vs +1.3897 for Moncrief......which, a gap of +0.2 per game is not at all insignificant in a stat for which we view +100 for an entire season to be really really good.


2) I believe one also needs to look at scoring volume.
Someone scoring a severely anemic 12 pts/100 possessions at +0.3% rTS will end up with a marginally higher TS Add than a 1st-option scorer averaging 35 pts/100 poss at +0.1% rTS (assuming the same playing time). But I'd be reluctant to call them similar-tiered scorers.
For real/concrete example of what I'm talking about: Ben Wallace had a TS Add of +14.1 in '99.......that's better than all but TWO seasons of Allen Iverson's career. So was he a better scorer that year than those other 11 Iverson seasons?

Now, that's a deliberately hyperbolic example to illustrate the point; obviously the gap in volume between Moncrief and Kawhi is smaller........but it is there.
Moncrief averaged 24.7 pts/100 for his career (vs. 31.2 for Kawhi). Sid doesn't have a single season that matches Kawhi's career average, and only ONE year where he's even within 3 pts of Kawhi's career mark.

So when I'm seeing a TS Add comparison that looks close----NOTE: You arbitrarily used the +100 cut-off and noted Sid has 4 of the top six [5 of the top seven, actually] seasons between them in TS Add. But if, for example, I chose 40+ as the cut-off [or 50+ if using Kawhi's pro-rated figures], Kawhi has 10 of the top 17 seasons between them (and 7 of the top 12 if using the pro-rated figures [he'd have 8 of the top 14 even without])---I want to take notice of relevant gaps in scoring volume.


So I don't think the scoring comparison favours Sid in the way you're saying.
To be fair, Sid does do a little more assisting than Kawhi in the rs (5.8/100 possessions, vs 4.7 for Kawhi). Though Kawhi rebounds a lot more, fwiw (not on the offensive glass, though I think that's largely a product of era: league avg OREB% in '85 [middle of Sid's career] was 32.9%; in '17 [middle of Kawhi's career] was 23.3%).


However, then I'd also look at turnover economy. And that is not at all close.
Kawhi's career rs Modified TOV% is 6.47%. To put that in perspective, Jordan's career mTOV% was 6.54%. Kawhi is in a GOAT-tier among wings.
Moncrief's was 8.48%.


And then you sort of hit the nail on the head with mention of playoffs. If it is fair to say the offensive comparison gets blown wide open, this is where it happens.....

In the playoffs, per 100 possessions, Moncrief suffers the following changes: -1.7 pts (-1.8% TS), -0.9 ast, and +0.3 tov (also -0.2 reb). mTOV% of 9.83% (that's just about Pete Maravich territory).

Kawhi, per 100 possession, sees the following changes in the playoffs: -0.3 pts (but +1.9% TS), -0.5 ast, +0.1 tov (+1.1 reb, fwiw). mTOV% of 7.23%.

So whereas Sidney sees small to moderate declines straight across the board (everything), Kawhi sees signficantly smaller ticks downward in pts, ast, and turnover economy, while seeing significant INCREASES in shooting efficiency and rebounding.



SUMMARY:
I view Kawhi as the slightly lesser playmaker, though the slight better scorer (strictly in terms of volume and shooting efficiency), and with FAR better turnover economy. He's the better rebounder, too.

And that's in the rs.

In the playoffs, I view him as the substantially better scorer (in terms of volume and efficiency--->neither of these things at all close in the playoffs), the much better rebounder, only slightly lesser passer/playmaker, and even further ahead in turnover economy.

Slightly unrelated to the topic, but could you calculate mTOV% for a few centers for my project? That would be very helpful.

70sFan wrote:Slightly unrelated to the topic, but could you calculate mTOV% for a few centers for my project? That would be very helpful.

Of course. There are a number I've calculated already. Just PM me any names you want run.

trex_8063 wrote:

Semantically, I may have overstated the gap a little, thinking the gap in shooting efficiency was bigger than it actually is. That said......


Regarding TS Add, there are a couple things you're not considering [which I believe you should]:

1) It's a cumulative stat. In the 100+ seasons for Moncrief, the fewest games he played in any of those seasons was 73. In Kawhi's 100+ years, he played as many as 74 just ONCE, and otherwise played 72 or fewer. Not that I want to reward him for his lack of durability, but it should also be noted that in some instances the fewer games is not entirely his body's fault: he's got THREE seasons in his career that were shortened (by 16 games in '12, due to player strike; by 10 games in each of '20 and '21 as result of Covid); Moncrief doesn't have ANY such seasons in his career.

Kawhi trails Sidney by fewer than 70 TS Add, despite having played 139 fewer games (fwiw, if we pro-rate Kawhi's figures for the number of games the season was shortened in '12, '20, and '21, he closes the gap in career TS Add by nearly half).
Anyway, Kawhi's TS Add/game is +1.5874, vs +1.3897 for Moncrief......which, a gap of +0.2 per game is not at all insignificant in a stat for which we view +100 for an entire season to be really really good.


2) I believe one also needs to look at scoring volume.
Someone scoring a severely anemic 12 pts/100 possessions at +0.3% rTS will end up with a marginally higher TS Add than a 1st-option scorer averaging 35 pts/100 poss at +0.1% rTS (assuming the same playing time). But I'd be reluctant to call them similar-tiered scorers.
For real/concrete example of what I'm talking about: Ben Wallace had a TS Add of +14.1 in '99.......that's better than all but TWO seasons of Allen Iverson's career. So was he a better scorer that year than those other 11 Iverson seasons?

Now, that's a deliberately hyperbolic example to illustrate the point; obviously the gap in volume between Moncrief and Kawhi is smaller........but it is there.
Moncrief averaged 24.7 pts/100 for his career (vs. 31.2 for Kawhi). Sid doesn't have a single season that matches Kawhi's career average, and only ONE year where he's even within 3 pts of Kawhi's career mark.

So when I'm seeing a TS Add comparison that looks close----NOTE: You arbitrarily used the +100 cut-off and noted Sid has 4 of the top six [5 of the top seven, actually] seasons between them in TS Add. But if, for example, I chose 40+ as the cut-off [or 50+ if using Kawhi's pro-rated figures], Kawhi has 10 of the top 17 seasons between them (and 7 of the top 12 if using the pro-rated figures [he'd have 8 of the top 14 even without])---I want to take notice of relevant gaps in scoring volume.


So I don't think the scoring comparison favours Sid in the way you're saying.
To be fair, Sid does do a little more assisting than Kawhi in the rs (5.8/100 possessions, vs 4.7 for Kawhi). Though Kawhi rebounds a lot more, fwiw (not on the offensive glass, though I think that's largely a product of era: league avg OREB% in '85 [middle of Sid's career] was 32.9%; in '17 [middle of Kawhi's career] was 23.3%).


However, then I'd also look at turnover economy. And that is not at all close.
Kawhi's career rs Modified TOV% is 6.47%. To put that in perspective, Jordan's career mTOV% was 6.54%. Kawhi is in a GOAT-tier among wings.
Moncrief's was 8.48%.


And then you sort of hit the nail on the head with mention of playoffs. If it is fair to say the offensive comparison gets blown wide open, this is where it happens.....

In the playoffs, per 100 possessions, Moncrief suffers the following changes: -1.7 pts (-1.8% TS), -0.9 ast, and +0.3 tov (also -0.2 reb). mTOV% of 9.83% (that's just about Pete Maravich territory).

Kawhi, per 100 possession, sees the following changes in the playoffs: -0.3 pts (but +1.9% TS), -0.5 ast, +0.1 tov (+1.1 reb, fwiw). mTOV% of 7.23%.

So whereas Sidney sees small to moderate declines straight across the board (everything), Kawhi sees signficantly smaller ticks downward in pts, ast, and turnover economy, while seeing significant INCREASES in shooting efficiency and rebounding.



SUMMARY:
I view Kawhi as the slightly lesser playmaker, though the slight better scorer (strictly in terms of volume and shooting efficiency), and with FAR better turnover economy. He's the better rebounder, too.

And that's in the rs.

In the playoffs, I view him as the substantially better scorer (in terms of volume and efficiency--->neither of these things at all close in the playoffs), the much better rebounder, only slightly lesser passer/playmaker, and even further ahead in turnover economy.

I didn't look at turnover efficiency.

Stats don't bear out the rebounding, despite the positional advantage for Kawhi, but a lot of that may be today's 4 out/5 out offenses. I agree that the cumulative effect matters, but I also agree that missing games should be penalized. But you are certainly right that a shortened season should NOT be penalized and if I did, that was a mistake.

And I used only the top few seasons because there are BOTH guys with short prime careers and lot of injuries. Oh, and you won't see Iverson on any of my top 100 ballots.

I always wonder with 80s DPOYs how much of it was that the voters hadn't sorted out guard defender vs big defender impact just yet. Moncrief

It's tough to crap on guys like Moncrief

Then don't.

What makes you think he wasn't the best defender in the league?

From 1980-81 to 1985-86 here are the best defensive teams in terms of defensive points allowed per 100 team possessions:

101.1 Milwaukee
102.3 Boston
102.5 Washington
102.7 Philadelphia
102.8 Phoenix
103.4 New Jersey

The difference between Milwaukee and the next best team Boston is the same as the difference between the 2nd and 6th best defensive teams - i.e. Milwaukee was not only the best defensive team over this long 6 year stretch, they were a dominant defensive team - over that time 3rd, 1st, 6th, 2nd, 1st, and 1st in team defensive efficiency.

Moncrief played - by far - the most minutes on Milwaukee those 6 seasons, 16483 minutes (1/7 of their total minutes played). No one else played even 10,100 minutes. He actually played more minutes than Bob Lanier and Alton Lister did combined.

And the NBA coaches at that time voted Moncrief as the only Bucks player to an all-defense team (4 time all-defense 1st team, 1 time all-defense 2nd team), and the sportswriters of that time watching those games named him DPOY not once but twice (1982-83, 1983-84), and 2nd in DPOY voting another time (1984-85). Obviously his impact on defense was huge in their eyes.

I'd say that makes him the dominant defensive player on a dominant defensive team in the eyes of those that game planned against him and those that watched him play on a nightly basis.