List of Best Defensive Players of all Time -

[Wolves2011]

Based on Defensive Win Share.

Wasn't Russell amazing!

1. Bill Russell* 15.96 1963-64 BOS
2. Bill Russell* 14.43 1964-65 BOS
3. Bill Russell* 12.55 1962-63 BOS
4. Bill Russell* 11.64 1961-62 BOS
5. Bill Russell* 11.37 1965-66 BOS
6. Bill Russell* 11.33 1960-61 BOS
7. Wilt Chamberlain* 10.73 1967-68 PHI
8. Wilt Chamberlain* 10.58 1963-64 SFW
9. Bill Russell* 9.87 1968-69 BOS
10. Dave Cowens* 9.85 1972-73 BOS
11. Artis Gilmore 9.81 1972-73 KEN
12. Bill Russell* 9.22 1966-67 BOS
13. Mel Daniels 9.11 1967-68 MNM
14. Ben Wallace 9.08 2003-04 DET
15. Bill Russell* 8.93 1959-60 BOS
16. Hakeem Olajuwon* 8.74 1989-90 HOU
17. Wilt Chamberlain* 8.50 1965-66 PHI
18. Artis Gilmore 8.27 1974-75 KEN
19. Bill Russell* 8.19 1958-59 BOS
20. Elvin Hayes* 8.16 1974-75 WSB
21. Elvin Hayes* 8.07 1973-74 CAP
22. Patrick Ewing* 8.05 1992-93 NYK
23. Wilt Chamberlain* 8.02 1959-60 PHW
24. Patrick Ewing* 7.98 1993-94 NYK
25. George Mikan* 7.97 1951-52 MNL
26. Kevin Garnett 7.96 2003-04 MIN
27. Hakeem Olajuwon* 7.95 1992-93 HOU
28. Hakeem Olajuwon* 7.92 1993-94 HOU
29. Wilt Chamberlain* 7.90 1971-72 LAL
30. Artis Gilmore 7.90 1973-74 KEN
31. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 7.89 1973-74 MIL
32. Ben Wallace 7.85 2002-03 DET
33. Bill Russell* 7.84 1967-68 BOS
34. Hakeem Olajuwon* 7.81 1988-89 HOU
35. Bill Russell* 7.68 1957-58 BOS
36. David Robinson* 7.64 1990-91 SAS
37. Paul Silas 7.62 1972-73 BOS
38. Dwight Howard 7.56 2008-09 ORL
39. Wilt Chamberlain* 7.51 1972-73 LAL
40. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 7.49 1972-73 MIL
41. Spencer Haywood 7.48 1969-70 DNR
42. Willis Reed* 7.45 1969-70 NYK
43. Julius Erving* 7.36 1974-75 NYA
44. Julius Erving* 7.24 1973-74 NYA
45. Ben Wallace 7.24 2001-02 DET
46. Tim Duncan 7.20 2003-04 SAS
47. David Robinson* 7.19 1995-96 SAS
48. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 7.19 1975-76 LAL
49. John Havlicek* 7.18 1972-73 BOS
50. David Robinson* 7.18 1989-90 SAS
51. Tim Duncan 7.17 1997-98 SAS
52. Artis Gilmore 7.15 1971-72 KEN
53. Tim Duncan 7.09 2001-02 SAS
54. Gerald Govan 7.09 1971-72 MMP
55. Bob Lanier* 7.08 1973-74 DET
56. Tim Duncan 7.07 2000-01 SAS
57. Elvin Hayes* 7.06 1970-71 SDR
58. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 7.06 1971-72 MIL
59. Gerald Govan 7.04 1970-71 MMP
60. Wilt Chamberlain* 7.03 1966-67 PHI
61. Dennis Rodman 7.00 1991-92 DET
62. Shaquille O'Neal 6.99 1999-00 LAL
63. Wes Unseld* 6.98 1968-69 BAL
64. K.C. Jones* 6.95 1963-64 BOS
65. Tim Duncan 6.94 2002-03 SAS
66. Patrick Ewing* 6.94 1991-92 NYK
67. Dan Issel* 6.92 1972-73 KEN
68. Dave Cowens* 6.91 1971-72 BOS
69. George Mikan* 6.90 1952-53 MNL
70. Tim Duncan 6.88 2005-06 SAS
71. Patrick Ewing* 6.87 1996-97 NYK
72. David Robinson* 6.87 1991-92 SAS
73. Ben Wallace 6.86 2005-06 DET
74. Wes Unseld* 6.82 1972-73 BAL
75. Charles Oakley 6.81 1993-94 NYK
76. Maurice Stokes* 6.81 1956-57 ROC
77. Tim Duncan 6.78 2006-07 SAS
78. Mark Eaton 6.75 1984-85 UTA
79. Jack Sikma 6.74 1981-82 SEA
80. Nate Thurmond* 6.74 1972-73 GS

[chakdaddy]

Here is the answer to anyone who dismisses Russell from consideration as greatest ever because his offensive numbers aren't much.

Gee, where's Rodman on the list?

[hairybyrd]

Based on Defensive Win Score.

Wasn't Russell amazing!

Russell was definitely amazing but what exactly is Defensive Win Score? What's the mathematic formula? Of the 80 players on this list, all but three players are 4s and 5s (Dr. J, Havlicek, K.C. Jones). This suggests big men are consistently better defensive players than little men, and while I don't necessarily disagree, it's difficult to understand a players' defense through statistics. What about the full court press and perimeter defense and jabbing at the passing lanes? These things don't show-up on stat sheets. Naturally, the skills required of a post player is rebounding and blocking shots so I'm guessing those statistics are weighted more heavily on a percentage basis than, for example, steals, a predominant skill of the little man. I'm not taking anything away from Russell's 11 rings, 5 MVPs, or "DWS" achievements but, to be fair, his statistics aren't being compared with the other great defensive players in history but rather the 4s and 5s of the 1960s.

One more question...do you know Chris Paul's Defensive Win Score?

[Zin5]

Are you friends with the guy that made this stat or something? I've seen you pimp it out here at least 5-10 times.

Love the number of names we have on that list besides Russell though. Jones, Silas, Cowens, Havlicek. Defense wins championships. It won 17 for us.

[chakdaddy]

This suggests big men are consistently better defensive players than little men, and while I don't necessarily disagree, it's difficult to understand a players' defense through statistics.

On the other hand, maybe it's possible that a great defensive big man is more valuable than a great defensive guard. A guard might shut down one guy on the perimiter, but a big man might shut down anyone who ventures into the paint. I remember thinking how guys like Theo Ratliff really change the game by their defense. I can't remember ever thinking that about a guard.

[Wolves2011]

Based on Defensive Win Score.

Wasn't Russell amazing!

Russell was definitely amazing but what exactly is Defensive Win Score? What's the mathematic formula? Of the 80 players on this list, all but three players are 4s and 5s (Dr. J, Havlicek, K.C. Jones). This suggests big men are consistently better defensive players than little men, and while I don't necessarily disagree, it's difficult to understand a players' defense through statistics. What about the full court press and perimeter defense and jabbing at the passing lanes? These things don't show-up on stat sheets. Naturally, the skills required of a post player is rebounding and blocking shots so I'm guessing those statistics are weighted more heavily on a percentage basis than, for example, steals, a predominant skill of the little man. I'm not taking anything away from Russell's 11 rings, 5 MVPs, or "DWS" achievements but, to be fair, his statistics aren't being compared with the other great defensive players in history but rather the 4s and 5s of the 1960s.

One more question...do you know Chris Paul's Defensive Win Score?

Defensive Win Shares for players this season are below, Paul is just below Rondo.

The four guards on the list Rondo, Paul, Bryant, and Wade were all defensive 1st and 2nd string.... though Rondo and I think Paul were the 2nd string...lol....

This is a quote from another string:

As GreenDreamer wrote in an earlier posting....."My own personal favorite is basketball-reference.com's stat method. None of them are perfect, but it is fairly outstanding. They can track defensive winshares back to the mid 70"s. The only guards to ever finish as high as third in that stat, and all three of them finished 3rd, were Jason Kidd, Michael Jordan... and Rajon Rondo, this past season. Yep. 35 years of basketball analysis, where the ONLY two other guards to finish as high were ALL_TIME GREATS as defenders..."

Defensive Win Shares for 2008-2009

1. Dwight Howard-ORL 7.6
2. LeBron James-CLE 6.5
3. Rajon Rondo-BOS 5.1
4. Tim Duncan-SAS 5.0
5. Yao Ming-HOU 5.0
6. Chris Paul-NOH 5.0
7. Rashard Lewis-ORL 4.8
8. Paul Pierce-BOS 4.8
9. Anderson Varejao-CLE 4.7
10. Gerald Wallace-CHA 4.6
11. Emeka Okafor-CHA 4.6
12. Kendrick Perkins-BOS 4.5
13. Hedo Turkoglu-ORL 4.4
14. Dwyane Wade-MIA 4.4
15. Luis Scola-HOU 4.3
16. Lamar Odom-LAL 4.2
17. Pau Gasol-LAL 4.2
18. Kevin Garnett-BOS 4.1
19. Kobe Bryant-LAL 4.0
20. Ron Artest-HOU 4.0

[ParticleMan]

dude, haven't you posted this about rondo in like 7 other threads??

damn. you are getting seriously annoying.

[Wolves2011]

dude, haven't you posted this about rondo in like 7 other threads??

damn. you are getting seriously annoying.

you're not obligated to read it.... the guy asked about Chris Paul's stats, so I posted the list for last year.... I thought the comment about Rondo was interesting for people who hadn't seen it.

Thats elite company, Jordon and Kidd........

[greenbeans]

1-Russell
2-whoever

I don't need your crappy stat to tell me something that is common knowledge.

[Wolves2011]

1-Russell
2-whoever

I don't need your crappy stat to tell me something that is common knowledge.

I always find it interesting to compare eras....

Younger people have heard about Russell, Chamberlain, etc.... but have no way to compare them to players today.

This stat shows how much better big guys were in earlier eras.

Ben Wallace is the only active player near the top of the list at #14.... and he only had 9.08 defensive win score...Russell peaked at 15.96....

Active Players on the Top 80 in Defensive Win Score list all time.

Ben Wallace # 14 -- 9.08
Kevin Garnett #26 -- 7.96
Ben Wallace #32 --- 7.85
Dwight Howard # 38 --- 7.56
Ben Wallace # 45 --- 7.24
Tim Duncan #46 --- 7.20
Tim Duncan #51 -- 7.17
Tim Duncan #52 --- 7.09
Tim Duncan #56 --- 7.07
Shaq # 62 -- 6.99
Tim Duncan # 65 -- 6.94
Tim Duncan # 70 --- 6.88
Ben Wallace #73 -- 6.86
Tim Duncan #77 -- 6.78

Best active players but past their prime are Ben Wallace and Tim Duncan

Dwight Howard looks to have a bright future. He is still maturing... only 23 years old. Won't reach physical peak until about 27.

[sully00]

Here is an explanation of win share
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

It is actually pretty relevant and consistent as these types of measures go. What needs to be understood and should be obvious is that the formula is not the same for the 50's and 60's as it is for the post 80's NBA. So you can't really compare Dwight Howard to Bill Russell, they simply did not track stats the same way.

It is also not totally designed to be a defensive and offensive rating, it actually includes those stats and is trying to find a way to combine both sides of the ball into win shares.

As with any stat it is only as strong as its weakest link. 3 of the best defensive players I have ever seen, and so honored by the league Michael Cooper, Dennis Johnson (two guards who could change the game defensively), and Kevin McHale are irrelevant on this list.

It is a thing.

[Wolves2011]

Here is an explanation of win share
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

It is actually pretty relevant and consistent as these types of measures go. What needs to be understood and should be obvious is that the formula is not the same for the 50's and 60's as it is for the post 80's NBA. So you can't really compare Dwight Howard to Bill Russell, they simply did not track stats the same way.

It is also not totally designed to be a defensive and offensive rating, it actually includes those stats and is trying to find a way to combine both sides of the ball into win shares.

As with any stat it is only as strong as its weakest link. 3 of the best defensive players I have ever seen, and so honored by the league Michael Cooper, Dennis Johnson (two guards who could change the game defensively), and Kevin McHale are irrelevant on this list.

It is a thing.

The only difference in the Defensive Win Shares for the two eras was Turnovers, they didn't track them for individuals before 77-78. They did track them by team though. They estimated individual player turnovers based on the teams, and estimates of possessions. The defensive win shares for guys like Russell were so high that you could double his estimated turn overs and he would still totally dominate defensive win score.....

...So I guess I'm saying you CAN COMPARE ERA's. ....

[sully00]

Wolves2011

It is actually okay to read what someone else writes and think for a second if they have a point. You did not invent these stats they have been discussed on this board at length. Right now we are talking about WIN SHARES, SPECIFICALLY DEFENSIVE WIN SHARES. IT IS NOT THE SAME AS WIN SCORE AT ALL.

Prior to the 1973-74 season, the NBA did not track defensive rebounds, steals, or blocks, so allocating defensive credit is a difficult task.

Why exactly would turnovers have anything to do with defensive win shares?

Yes you can compare era's but compare the player against his peers not to each other using the scores because the friggin formula is different.

[Wolves2011]

Wolves2011

It is actually okay to read what someone else writes and think for a second if they have a point. You did not invent these stats they have been discussed on this board at length. Right now we are talking about WIN SHARES, SPECIFICALLY DEFENSIVE WIN SHARES. IT IS NOT THE SAME AS WIN SCORE AT ALL.

Prior to the 1973-74 season, the NBA did not track defensive rebounds, steals, or blocks, so allocating defensive credit is a difficult task.

Why exactly would turnovers have anything to do with defensive win shares?

Yes you can compare era's but compare the player against his peers not to each other using the scores because the friggin formula is different.

sorry, you are correct... I was looking at the adjustment for Offensive Win Share...

The way those stats you mention -- defensive rebounds, steals and blocks -- were estimated looks credible to me.

Quote from Basketall-reference.com site: "Since those defensive statistics are not available for past seasons, I used total rebounds as a proxy for defensive rebounds and blocks, and assists as a proxy for steals". Keep in mind that total rebounds are a good proxy for both defensive rebounds and blocks. Assists as a proxy for steals isn't quite as strong, but that mostly affects guards. And as someone mentioned, this is mostly a "big mans stat".

I still think comparison across eras while not perfect, is credible for big men especially.

Keep in mind that Russell averaged about 22.5 rebounds per game for his career and had seasons with as many as 25 rebounds per game. Chamberlain averaged 22.9 and peaked at 27.2 for a season. Good players now have 12 or 14 rebounds per game. Refs, teammates and opponents of Russell have been interviewed and they estimated he had about 10 blocks per game. A good player now has about 4. .... Thats the difference in the eras.....

The Defensive Win Share formula picks up on that.

Overall, as with Wins Produced, total win share for all players on the team is calibrated to team wins so the estimates of statistical contribution are closely correlated with total team wins. -- wins shares for all players on a team are added up and compared to actual team wins. So the total methodology has credibility in predicting wins.

[theman]

Here is the answer to anyone who dismisses Russell from consideration as greatest ever because his offensive numbers aren't much.

Gee, where's Rodman on the list?

#61

Active Players on the Top 80 in Defensive Win Score list all time.

Ben Wallace # 14 -- 9.08
Ben Wallace #32 --- 7.85
Dwight Howard # 38 --- 7.56
Ben Wallace # 45 --- 7.24
Tim Duncan #46 --- 7.20
Tim Duncan #51 -- 7.17
Tim Duncan #52 --- 7.09
Tim Duncan #56 --- 7.07
Shaq # 62 -- 6.99
Tim Duncan # 65 -- 6.94
Tim Duncan # 70 --- 6.88
Ben Wallace #73 -- 6.86
Tim Duncan #77 -- 6.78

Best active players but past their prime are Ben Wallace and Tim Duncan

I am very impressed with how often Duncan shows up on the list. I am also surprised Shaq only appears once.

[sully00]

Wolves2011

It is actually okay to read what someone else writes and think for a second if they have a point. You did not invent these stats they have been discussed on this board at length. Right now we are talking about WIN SHARES, SPECIFICALLY DEFENSIVE WIN SHARES. IT IS NOT THE SAME AS WIN SCORE AT ALL.

Prior to the 1973-74 season, the NBA did not track defensive rebounds, steals, or blocks, so allocating defensive credit is a difficult task.

Why exactly would turnovers have anything to do with defensive win shares?

Yes you can compare era's but compare the player against his peers not to each other using the scores because the friggin formula is different.

sorry, you are correct... I was looking at the adjustment for Offensive Win Share...

The way those stats you mention -- defensive rebounds, steals and blocks -- were estimated looks credible to me.

Quote from Basketall-reference.com site: "Since those defensive statistics are not available for past seasons, I used total rebounds as a proxy for defensive rebounds and blocks, and assists as a proxy for steals". Keep in mind that total rebounds are a good proxy for both defensive rebounds and blocks. Assists as a proxy for steals isn't quite as strong, but that mostly affects guards. And as someone mentioned, this is mostly a "big mans stat".

I still think comparison across eras while not perfect, is credible for big men especially.

Keep in mind that Russell averaged about 22.5 rebounds per game for his career and had seasons with as many as 25 rebounds per game. Chamberlain averaged 22.9 and peaked at 27.2 for a season. Good players now have 12 or 14 rebounds per game. Refs, teammates and opponents of Russell have been interviewed and they estimated he had about 10 blocks per game. A good player now has about 4. .... Thats the difference in the eras.....

The Defensive Win Share formula picks up on that.

Overall, as with Wins Produced, total win share for all players on the team is calibrated to team wins so the estimates of statistical contribution are closely correlated with total team wins. -- wins shares for all players on a team are added up and compared to actual team wins. So the total methodology has credibility in predicting wins.

It does not "predict wins" it divides them.

The idea that comparing era's is at all valid when you aren't using the same formula is ridiculous. The numbers themselves do not matter your using different data. What you do is compare Russell to his peers and Howard to his peers, which is what you should do in any player comparison. The game Russell played was very different than the one McHale played as is the one Howard plays now. There was no 3pt shot, different defensive rules, different pace of play most importantly huge differences in FG% and scoring.

Only 3 players who played during what is considered the best era of the league, the 80's, appear on the list Hakeem at the end of the decade and Eaton and Sikma at the end of the list.

Now the fact that Russell lead the league 10 straight seasons and 11 of 12 he played is what shows that he is number one with a bullet. The only other players to lead the league for more than two consecutive seasons was Hakeem (4) and Ben Wallace (4), Duncan has done it 5 times over his career, nobody else is above 3. That is some ****.

[Wolves2011]

It does not "predict wins" it divides them.

.

It compares "predicted" wins by adding up all player win shares to actual team wins. This is the final step to ensure that the methodology of dividing up teams wins, works properly.

See below.

From the Basketball-reference.com web site

Quote:

"Putting It All Together

The final step of the process is to add Offensive Win Shares to Defensive Win Shares. In our examples, LeBron James's total in 2008-09 is 13.73 + 6.54 = 20.27 Win Shares and Oscar Robertson's total in 1964-65 is 14.27 + 2.69 = 16.96 Win Shares.

Does This Work?

Because this metric is designed to estimate a player's contribution in terms of wins, it makes sense to see if the sum of player Win Shares for a particular team closely matches the team win total. For the 2008-09 Cavaliers the sum of player Win Shares is 67.9, while the team win total is 66, an error of 66 - 67.9 = -1.9 wins. For the 1964-65 Royals the sum of player Win Shares is 43.5, while the team total is 48, an error of 48 - 43.5 = 4.5 wins. These errors are actually close to the "typical" error; looking at all NBA teams since the 1962-63 season (the last season we have complete player splits), the average absolute error is 2.74 wins and the root mean squared error is 3.41 wins."

[hairybyrd]

Wolves 2011, let me get this straight. Chris Paul's Defensive Win Score last year was 5.0, Dwight Howard's was 7.6, and Russell's Win Score was 15.96 in 1963? Really?

I'm not denying Russell's achievements - just wanted to put that out there. I'm a huge fan of his but the numbers just don't match up and while he achieved a great deal in '64 so did Paul and Howard in '09, respectively. Paul set an NBA record for consecutive steals with 108 (carrying over from the year before) and Howard was the Defensive Player of the Year during, arguably, one of the league's most competitive seasons. A player's Defensive Win Score is simply not comparable by era or position. If this statistic was reliable, why wouldn't commentators, sportscasters and writers use it? I've never heard of Defensive Win Score before reading this post but, like Sully, I have my doubts.

Relatively, it probably works fine but historically, no way. To the credit of Win Score, defense is difficult to analyze so maybe it is the best method out there. I really have no understanding of its accuracy but seeing such a disparity in the numbers of Paul and Howard in '09 to Russell in '64 I wouldn't put much stock into it. Beyond that, stats don't mean so much when you're actually watching the game rather than making the box score more complicated than it has to be.

[Wolves2011]

Wolves 2011, let me get this straight. Chris Paul's Defensive Win Score last year was 5.0, Dwight Howard's was 7.6, and Russell's Win Score was 15.96 in 1963? Really?

I'm not denying Russell's achievements - just wanted to put that out there. I'm a huge fan of his but the numbers just don't match up and while he achieved a great deal in '64 so did Paul and Howard in '09, respectively. Paul set an NBA record for consecutive steals with 108 (carrying over from the year before) and Howard was the Defensive Player of the Year during, arguably, one of the league's most competitive seasons. A player's Defensive Win Score is simply not comparable by era or position. If this statistic was reliable, why wouldn't commentators, sportscasters and writers use it? I've never heard of Defensive Win Score before reading this post but, like Sully, I have my doubts.

Relatively, it probably works fine but historically, no way. To the credit of Win Score, defense is difficult to analyze so maybe it is the best method out there. I really have no understanding of its accuracy but seeing such a disparity in the numbers of Paul and Howard in '09 to Russell in '64 I wouldn't put much stock into it. Beyond that, stats don't mean so much when you're actually watching the game rather than making the box score more complicated than it has to be.

I'll explain why Howard is so much less than guys like Russell.

Howard led the NBA with 13.8 rebounds per game last year.

Russell's best rebounding season was 25 rebounds per game and he averaged 22.5 rebounds per game for his CAREER.

Ref's, teammates and opponents of Russell estimated that he blocked about 10 shots per game, which would show up in defensive efficiency stats. He would be altering even more shots.

The bests shot blocker last year was Howard at 2.9 per game.

There are orders of magnitude difference.

Big guys back then dominated much more than they do today.

[hairybyrd]

Big guys back then dominated much more than they do today.

This statement is simply not true. Without even considering the differences in stat tracking there are significant cultural differences between the early NBA and today's NBA.

Back then the league was much smaller and predominantly white. Today it is 22 teams bigger and 85% black. Don't you consider how this is possible? It's called racism. That's a major non-statistical reason why you can't compare era's. Combine that with sports industry, competition, and the differences in stat tracking; the NBA has evolved more than any professional American sport over the last 50 years.

I'll explain why Howard is so much less than guys like Russell.

Howard led the NBA with 13.8 rebounds per game last year.

Russell's best rebounding season was 25 rebounds per game and he averaged 22.5 rebounds per game for his CAREER.

If Russell and Howard matched-up right now do you think you would get the same result? If you answer yes then I don't know what else to say. The reason NOBODY has averaged Russell-like numbers since he played the game is because he changed the game. This is a credit to Russell, no doubt, but it's also relative to the factors I listed above (60s racism, industry, competition, and stat tracking). Russell was one of the most influential players of all time but to think he would average 25 rebounds per game in today's NBA is beyond my understanding. More than that, at 6-9, he would be considered too small to play the 5 and not offensively-minded enough to play the role of today's power forward. In closing, now is now, and then was then.