RealGM

How many years of Dwight would you take over Peak Draymond?

All of the prime ones.

I'm not sure I'd definitely take a prime Dwight year over Draymond in 16. That's how good I think Draymond was in 16.

If you swap the two and give the Warriors an equivalent 4 to Bogut's level that season, I genuinely think they win less than the 73 they did win.

Does Dwight fare better in the playoffs? Perhaps. He probably doesn't accumulate those technical fouls. That said, Draymond's game 7 performance is one of the best game 7 finals performances of all time.

So perhaps my answer would depend on the roster construction.

My gut response is something like 08-12 Dwight. Draymond's obviously a far better passer inside the context of Golden State's system with Steph and everyone else running around, but he's not a guy who was going to exert that same level of passing force outside of that context and he isn't any kind of scoring/spacing threat. Defensively, he doesn't outstrip what Dwight was doing, and he certainly doesn't come near him as a rebounder.

It's very difficult to separate Draymond's performance on those Warriors teams from his more removed value, which makes a comparison like this challenging. I think Green was more appropriate for Golden State, but I think prime Dwight was a better player. Let's not forget he did take a team to the Finals as the focal guy. There's no way Draymond was ever going to do that. And while the 09 Magic were pretty talented relative to their EC peers, Dwight was still a monster... and also the year after. Hell, they swept through the first two rounds in 2010 and then took the Celtics to 6. If Shard, Vince, Jameer and Redick hadn't all sucked in G6, that series could have gone to 7 and maybe ended with Orlando going back for a rematch with LA. The year prior, he beat the piss out of Philly, then took Boston in 7. He struggled to find volume, but defended and rebounded well, scored efficiently at the volume he managed, and the Magic used that team approach to take the Celtics. Then he beat up the Cavs and put 40 on them in Game 6 to close it out before finally struggling against LA's frontcourt.

Dwight was amazing in his heyday. I don't think Draymond really compares in the broad sense. I think his only real argument is one of specific fit for those Warriors, which doesn't make him a better player.

TheGOATRises007 wrote:I'm not sure I'd definitely take a prime Dwight year over Draymond in 16. That's how good I think Draymond was in 16.

If you swap the two and give the Warriors an equivalent 4 to Bogut's level that season, I genuinely think they win less than the 73 they did win.

So are we evaluating fit for the Warriors specifically, or player value more broadly?

I have no particular opinion on this question - but how do we square all of this very specific late 2000s Orlando Magic context with the idea of "broad player value"?

It's not like Draymond is the only player that has to fit next to 4 other guys

tsherkin wrote:
So are we evaluating fit for the Warriors specifically, or player value more broadly?

Meanwhile, Dwight was a Center who was relatively limited as a playmaker and passer who benefited greatly from a teambuilding perspective as the Orlando Magic, from the 2008-2012 seasons you list, as having the #1 3P Attempt Rate every single season.

It appears both players were in systems in which they benefited, but you have yet to explain how it was Draymond who benefited more than Dwight.

ReggiesKnicks wrote:Meanwhile, Dwight was a Center who was relatively limited as a playmaker and passer who benefited greatly from a teambuilding perspective as the Orlando Magic, from the 2008-2012 seasons you list, as having the #1 3P Attempt Rate every single season.

It appears both players were in systems in which they benefited, but you have yet to explain how it was Draymond who benefited more than Dwight.

100%, they both did. I suspect Dwight's specifics were more translatable. First of all, Draymond needed 2 or 3 considerably better scoring threats around him, needed to be played as a big, didn't stun on the glass and wasn't a spacer. While Dwight was able to be used as a scoring threat in a variety of ways which translated outside of the Orlando context and was a major rim protector and the most dominant rebounder in the league during his prime.

It's not really the same thing. Every star has a team built around their strengths, to be sure. But with Draymond, we've not had an opportunity to see what his passing would look like without being surrounded by some of the greatest shooters in league history (including THE greatest 3pt shooter ever). He's good, but how many 6 or 7 apg seasons would he be having on a team that wasn't defined by the presence of someone like Steph and Klay? How many teams could accommodate his weak FT shooting, lack of a 3 and lack of self-creation?

The magnitude of benefit between the two is different. Dwight nearly won a title as the centerpiece because of appropriate team construction. We still need clarity on how well Draymond can affect an offense without Steph. His D obviously translates, but how much of his offensive value would maintain?

We'll never see peak Draymond outside of the specific Kerr Warriors context just like we'll never see peak Dwight outside of the late 00s/early 10s Magic context. I don't see why there should be anymore lack of clarity for one than the other, unless I suppose you see LA/Houston Dwight or even after that as particularly relevant to this conversation.

And I get that this is in comparison to Dwight's scoring, but how can FT or 3 point shooting really be seen as demerits against Draymond in this specific comparison. Both are great screen setters (would be an interesting comparison between the two on this point narrowly), Draymond is a much much better passer/ball handler in his prime. Draymond much more versatile on defense.

Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to have Dwight over. It just feels like sometimes Draymond having insane chemistry/fit with his teammates is somehow seen as a negative or something to eliminate in pursuit of objective analysis rather than one of the best things you could ask for in a team game

parsnips33 wrote:We'll never see peak Draymond outside of the specific Kerr Warriors context just like we'll never see peak Dwight outside of the late 00s/early 10s Magic context. I don't see why there should be anymore lack of clarity for one than the other, unless I suppose you see LA/Houston Dwight or even after that as particularly relevant to this conversation.

Translation of skillset was the foundation of my thought.

Green isn't a particularly adept slasher/penetrate-and-pitch guy. His playmaking comes from fairly specific action surrounded by much, much better scoring threats than him, right, so it's a little bit more of a connecting skill set heavily reliant upon others for his individual offensive value.

That is far less true of Dwight.

And I get that this is in comparison to Dwight's scoring, but how can FT or 3 point shooting really be seen as demerits against Draymond in this specific comparison.

Because he offers nothing else as a scorer, while Dwight creates for himself in a variety of ways on and off ball. Draymond's a non-scorer.

Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to have Dwight over. It just feels like sometimes Draymond having insane chemistry/fit with his teammates is somehow seen as a negative or something to eliminate in pursuit of objective analysis rather than one of the best things you could ask for in a team game

It's an angle, not the whole angle. He's a non-scorer who is known for defense and passing, but he doesn't really create for others in conventional ways.

Green has good court awareness and he hits cutters well. He screens well and makes a good touch pass out of that action to cutters/rollers, etc. He can handle in transition and make the basic passes there. He's a good passer. But that style of passing has its limitations as far as portability is concerned, which is where any kind of questioning comes from. You don't initiate offense with him, so as far as player level, you're talking about a guy who fits in and connects other high-end guys inside an organized system a lot more than is the case with Dwight offensively. He'll hit the O-boards on his own, he can get deep seals on his own, he's a dangerous scoring threat rolling out of a high screen, etc, etc.

So there's just a different approach to their relevance as offensive players and to the context required to take advantage of them, was my point.

Draymond's a really good player, but based on the WAY he approaches playmaking, the variety of contexts in which he can produce high-end value on that end of the floor is more limited than with Dwight, that's all.

Matt15 wrote:How many years of Dwight would you take over Peak Draymond?

None, actually, which requires some explanation.

To be clear, I do think at peak Dwight was a stronger MVP candidate than Draymond ever was, but it was fool's gold because it came with really clever coaching & team building that Dwight didn't simply fail to appreciate, but actually forced the franchise to veer away from, and when that inevitably made the team worse, he forced his way out of the franchise.

Were Draymond to have acted like Dwight - trying to get Kerr fired, insisting on taking shots he shouldn't, etc - of course you'd rather have Dwight, but the reality is that Dwight is Dwight and what you want from your star is basically to be non-Dwight, hence there are a lot of guys I'd rather have than Dwight even in the best of times.

Of course there's also the matter that people have often had a tendency to overrate Dwight's defense. Back when he was winning those DPOYs, there was actually a pretty vocal push to say that Dwight was the best to ever play defensive anchor, but this was never close to the truth. He was good enough that it wasn't crazy to have him win DPOY, but he lacked the intelligence to really rival the best in history. Classic example: Dwight's love of blocking shots so that they fly dramatically out of bounds, when the right basketball move is to take care and bat the ball toward a teammate.

And yeah, while Green's obviously not the classic shot-blocking big the way Dwight was, I absolutely consider Green to be the most impactful defender basically all through his prime. Green's got offensive limitations of course, but generally he knows what they are and he makes good decisions out there to get the most out of his teammates. He certainly benefits guys like Steph & Klay more than a guy like Dwight would.