
Peak manu vs peak draymond
Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,827
- And1: 5,031
- Joined: Jan 14, 2013
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
- AdagioPace
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,875
- And1: 7,421
- Joined: Jan 03, 2017
- Location: Contado di Molise
-
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
hate to say but it's Draymond (at least in 2016). GS's top defensive player, secondary playmaker. Huge impact on full starter minutes.
Manu for prime and career.
Manu for prime and career.
"La natura gode della natura; la natura trionfa sulla natura; la natura domina la natura" - Ostanes
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,802
- And1: 3,201
- Joined: Dec 30, 2016
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
One-year peak? 2016 Dray, although 2005 Manu can be legitimately chosen as well.
Any longer time span? Manu.
Perhaps it's close, but Draymond could be utilized the way he was thanks to perfectly fitting cast with all-time great offball shooters. Obviously, Dray has also an outlier-type of skillset to fit in such environment, but in comparing players you have to run more than one scenario to evaluate them.
And Manu was a perfect fit to basically every team as a ballhandler/shooter/defender creator. He would've been fantastic second option to basically any 1st-tier superstar historically.
Any longer time span? Manu.
Perhaps it's close, but Draymond could be utilized the way he was thanks to perfectly fitting cast with all-time great offball shooters. Obviously, Dray has also an outlier-type of skillset to fit in such environment, but in comparing players you have to run more than one scenario to evaluate them.
And Manu was a perfect fit to basically every team as a ballhandler/shooter/defender creator. He would've been fantastic second option to basically any 1st-tier superstar historically.
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,042
- And1: 3,932
- Joined: Jun 22, 2022
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
The Master wrote:One-year peak? 2016 Dray, although 2005 Manu can be legitimately chosen as well.
Any longer time span? Manu.
Perhaps it's close, but Draymond could be utilized the way he was thanks to perfectly fitting cast with all-time great offball shooters. Obviously, Dray has also an outlier-type of skillset to fit in such environment, but in comparing players you have to run more than one scenario to evaluate them.
And Manu was a perfect fit to basically every team as a ballhandler/shooter/defender creator. He would've been fantastic second option to basically any 1st-tier superstar historically.
What Draymond offers defensively is more portable than what Manu offers offensively. This is also a wierd line of reasoning given it's Manu, not Draymond who was playing way less minutes than his co-star, and Draymond not Manu who has a strong impact track-record outside of the few minutes a player is subbed off for a game.
If we go from 20-22 including a year where Draymond was minute restricted, Draymond's presence sees an 11-win improvement for what a not perfect supporting cast on the basis was largely of league-best defense. Over extended absences(10 games a season or more) the Spurs were not significantly worse without Manu.
If one of these two players was getting inflated situationally, it would be Ginobli, not Draymond.
You should actually support that
A. What you expect to happen in these "more than one scenarios" would happen
amd
B. the "more than one scenarios" you chose are more relevant/replicable than the "more than one scenarios" where the reverse happens.
Defense only juggernauts have a track record of being among the most impactful players in the league. Defensive juggernauts also see the least fluctuation in signals between situations. What scenarios are you running where Manu fits across more situations.
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,802
- And1: 3,201
- Joined: Dec 30, 2016
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
OhayoKD wrote:What Draymond offers defensively is more portable than what Manu offers offensively.
Perhaps it is, but that's not a point, we're talking about overall impact, not about Dray's defense vs Manu's offense, and overall portability, not offensive vs defensive portability by, respectively, Manu and Dray. I wrote about Manu offense because it's kind of obvious All-NBA D guard would fit any lineup, same with Dray's DPOTY-level D.
Once Green post ~2017 started to struggle with his jumper - him being ~neutral offensively was directly related to Curry/Warriors' system being one of a kind that could optimize his specific offensive skillset (handles and passing). In less screen/offball movement-dependent offense (let's say around Jokic/Giannis/LeBron, not Steph, so still the very top tier of NBA players), I'm pretty sure he would've been net negative on offense (to much bigger degree, if the one assumes he's negative already in that period). That doesn't mean he wouldn't be still very good etc. - and it's not a straight-forward criticism per se (he could fit in one of the all-time great teams offensively for a reason). But yeah, him being DPOTY-level defender useful on offense - the latter part, I should say - was very circumstantial.
Manu went +10 net on a championship team without his best player on a court, so I don't think win-improvement is any indication of him being 'more favored situationally'. He obviously was, in this sense that he played on an all-time great franchise, but not in terms of his 'skillset optimization'.
So if by 'peak' the OP meant 'better best season', I can go with Dray (DPOTY defender - respectable shooter - great playmaker), although it's very close (2005s Manu is legendary in terms of pure impact for a 2nd option). Manu's best years are better than any non-decent shooting season of Dray, and that's like everything besides 2016 + 2017 playoffs (not a full season tho), I believe.
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,042
- And1: 3,932
- Joined: Jun 22, 2022
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
The Master wrote:OhayoKD wrote:What Draymond offers defensively is more portable than what Manu offers offensively.
Perhaps it is, but that's not a point, we're talking about overall impact, not about Dray's defense vs Manu's offense, and overall portability, not offensive vs defensive portability by, respectively, Manu and Dray. I wrote about Manu offense because it's kind of obvious All-NBA D guard would fit any lineup, same with Dray's DPOTY-level D.
The bulk of Draymond's total impact is defensive. Thus "kind of obvious" to you that draymond not playing "with a bunch of great off-ball players" would not be nearly as damanging to his total impact as say, Manu Ginobli playing next to a player who can only effectively anchor the offensive side of the court, ala, Steph Curry, Kobe Bryant, Micheal Jordan, Magic Johnson, Kyrie Irving.
Unless you think Draymond's defense is contingent on elite-off ball players(and I'd encourage you to actually work out how you think that works mechanically), of which he largely looked rather impactful without over the last 4 seasons, this is a non-starter.
It should also be kind of obvious that "all nba d" guard defense isn't all that valuable in the larger scale of things when DPOY-level guards have never regiestered the same sort of discernible influence as "over-the-hill" bigs like toronto Gasol. Draymond's ability to handle the ball and elite passing is a nice perk, but it isn't essential. Manu minus his ball-handling and passing? Yeah, it should be "Kind of obvious" his impact would evaporate.
Doctor MJ wrote a bunch about how he wasn't optimized playing next to a two-way center. Imagine how he looks playing next to the far more common sort of player: a one-way juggernaut who generates impact via a combination of ball-handling, playmaking, taking a high volume of shots with reasonable to good effeciency.
Draymond is also a two-way floor-general and one of a handful of players in history(Russell, Lebron, CP3) who can operate as a pseudo-coach on both ends, a skill which doesn't require the ball at any point during a possession to utilize(and can directly hurt one's on/off if you offer some of that off the bench)
Do you really think Manu looks as good if he swaps places with draymond and is asked to carry weak defenders by stacking up his offense ontop of steph's and cp3's? Because Draymond's defense stacking up with Duncan, is something that we've seen happen over and over again(Robinson - Duncan, Brooks - Giannis, Gasol - Ibaka) without notable "diminishing returns"
And that's not even touching the fact that Draymond is far more proven over larger samples(11-win lift during the back-end of his prime on extremely unflattering samples(again 2020 is included here)), while Manu looks like a straight role player there(2003, and 2005 spurs are excellent in games without him) and also happens to play substantially less than his co-star(15-17 draymond and steph played nearly identical minutes without each other and the lineups looked about as good). And then we can look to the 2005 playoff rotations where we see Duncan is also playing substantially more with the lower minute players on the roster, and recall we saw this exact same lineup effect with david robinson.
That is not to say Manu's playoff on/off can't be reflective of his true value(doc has argued reasonably well that it might be), but that is not really a question we have any reason to ask for Draymond. Draymond's empirical profile is relatively bullet-proof as someone who kills rapm, on/off, WOWY, and replication across contexts. Manu's is not.
There are ways to argue for Manu over Draymond, but "manu's impact is less situational" breaks down with basically any level of scrutiny.
So if by 'peak' the OP meant 'better best season', I can go with Dray (DPOTY defender - respectable shooter - great playmaker), although it's very close (2005s Manu is legendary in terms of pure impact for a 2nd option). Manu's best years are better than any non-decent shooting season of Dray, and that's like everything besides 2016 + 2017 playoffs (not a full season tho), I believe.
And yet over the largest per-season samples available, 2020 to 2023 Draymond was more impactful without said jumpshot than Manu in the year you are saying can be argued against Draymond with said jumpshot
Manu went +10 net on a championship team without his best player on a court, so I don't think win-improvement is any indication of him being 'more favored situationally'. He obviously was, in this sense that he played on an all-time great franchise, but not in terms of his 'skillset optimization'.
Or maybe you are putting way too much stock in what happens when a player misses a few minutes a game.
Alternatively, Manu could not fit with a superstar who his skillset sees minimal overlap with and actually needs alot more to be maximized than draymond who was able to make it work with a guy who gets a good chunk of his value handling the ball and making passes to a degree of proficiency duncan never did.
Again the "kind of obvious" thing here basically only works if you ignore that Duncan got star-level impact defensively while Manu does not. If Manu wasn't getting maximized next to Duncan, then his "overall impact" is clearly more context-dependent than Draymond's is.
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
- cupcakesnake
- Senior Mod- WNBA
- Posts: 15,295
- And1: 31,536
- Joined: Jul 21, 2016
-
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
I also disagree with Draymond being more portable.
Draymond will bring that monster defense and provide value wherever he goes, but any other offensive situation is a more awkward fit for him than Golden State. He'll always grease the wheels some with his playmaking, screening, and smart movement... but it will also always be awkward that not only can he not shoot, but he's never a scoring threat anywhere on the floor in any kind of action. I don't like to give him too much credit for a single season of solid 3-point shooting (2016) and a single post season run (2017). The media was slow to react to the reality that Draymond couldn't actually shoot, but we don't have to be! His own confidence in his shot (and his drives) shriveled up fast. I'm not saying Draymond needed to be in Golden State to provide value, just that the offensive side of the equation only gets more awkward in any other situation.
I don't see a situation where Manu is an awkward fit on either side of the ball. If it's a team that already has primary playmakers, Manu can add value as a spot-up shooter, close out attacker, and genius level extra playmaker. Oh and if you ever need him to scale up to become your main ball handling decision maker... he can do that at a superstar level (in limited minutes). Even on a team that doesn't rely on him, he'd do a better playmaking version of what Bogdan is doing in Atlanta this year. Then on defense, Manu excellent feet and hands, and off-ball cleverness, are going to be a major asset. Plug and play Many anywhere, in any offensive and defensive scheme... I just don't see the weaknesses?
Draymond will bring that monster defense and provide value wherever he goes, but any other offensive situation is a more awkward fit for him than Golden State. He'll always grease the wheels some with his playmaking, screening, and smart movement... but it will also always be awkward that not only can he not shoot, but he's never a scoring threat anywhere on the floor in any kind of action. I don't like to give him too much credit for a single season of solid 3-point shooting (2016) and a single post season run (2017). The media was slow to react to the reality that Draymond couldn't actually shoot, but we don't have to be! His own confidence in his shot (and his drives) shriveled up fast. I'm not saying Draymond needed to be in Golden State to provide value, just that the offensive side of the equation only gets more awkward in any other situation.
I don't see a situation where Manu is an awkward fit on either side of the ball. If it's a team that already has primary playmakers, Manu can add value as a spot-up shooter, close out attacker, and genius level extra playmaker. Oh and if you ever need him to scale up to become your main ball handling decision maker... he can do that at a superstar level (in limited minutes). Even on a team that doesn't rely on him, he'd do a better playmaking version of what Bogdan is doing in Atlanta this year. Then on defense, Manu excellent feet and hands, and off-ball cleverness, are going to be a major asset. Plug and play Many anywhere, in any offensive and defensive scheme... I just don't see the weaknesses?
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."
Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,754
- And1: 3,294
- Joined: Jul 11, 2005
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
I'll take the guy who is available at the most crucial times and not hurting his team with his absence.
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,042
- And1: 3,932
- Joined: Jun 22, 2022
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
cupcakesnake wrote:I also disagree with Draymond being more portable.
Draymond will bring that monster defense and provide value wherever he goes, but any other offensive situation is a more awkward fit for him than Golden State. He'll always grease the wheels some with his playmaking, screening, and smart movement... but it will also always be awkward that not only can he not shoot, but he's never a scoring threat anywhere on the floor in any kind of action. I don't like to give him too much credit for a single season of solid 3-point shooting (2016) and a single post season run (2017). The media was slow to react to the reality that Draymond couldn't actually shoot, but we don't have to be! His own confidence in his shot (and his drives) shriveled up fast. I'm not saying Draymond needed to be in Golden State to provide value, just that the offensive side of the equation only gets more awkward in any other situation.
This only matters if Draymond's defense alone is not suffecient to provide great impact. Given that pretty much any data has the bulk of Draymond's value coming from the defensive end...I don't really see much relevance with your skill-criticism. Draymond's primary value add is that he is an a to b+ paint-protector among bigs(bball index), an extremely versatile as a man defender, and orginaizes defenses(and offenses) as a floor general on the court or on the bench. None of that is really teammate dependent. For comparison...
I don't see a situation where Manu is an awkward fit on either side of the ball. If it's a team that already has primary playmakers, Manu can add value as a spot-up shooter, close out attacker, and genius level extra playmaker. Oh and if you ever need him to scale up to become your main ball handling decision maker... he can do that at a superstar level (in limited minutes).
"extra playmakers" are inherently less valuable than primary playmakers. Just like becoming a spot-up shooter is a big value drop from being someone the defenses primarily focus on. The problem isn't that manu can't adapt. The problem is the adaption instantly drains him of his impact in a way surrounding draymond with defensive players does not.
His "weakness" is he's a role player on the end of the floor that translates the easiest and a star on the end where stars are a dime a dozen.
It's the same reason Kareem and Lebron exert impact rivalling anyone in situations they're not optimized(as in literally playing with a smaller version of the same sort of player), and Duncan and Russell were winning regardless of system or coach.
The conception of "portablity" popularized here and elsewhere only works if you ignore defense. Curry was never the most portable player ever. Nor was Bird. Nor was Jordan. Nor was Durant. You don't belong in that conversation if you can't carry defenses.
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,802
- And1: 3,201
- Joined: Dec 30, 2016
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
OhayoKD wrote:The bulk of Draymond's total impact is defensive. Thus "kind of obvious" to you that draymond not playing "with a bunch of great off-ball players" would not be nearly as damanging to his total impact as say, Manu Ginobli playing next to a player who can only effectively anchor the offensive side of the court, ala, Steph Curry, Kobe Bryant, Micheal Jordan, Magic Johnson, Kyrie Irving.
Manu (highly efficient two-way player with great handles and decent shooting-playmaking combo) would be highly efficient alongside any of these guys. Whether it would be enough to win a championship is dependent on other factors (re: roster composition etc), but the same applies to Green. It's not like he would've been 12-3-3 type of a guy with Jordan on a team.
The thing is Manu could've played 2nd-fiddle offensive role alongside any of these guys (the beauty of Manu is he didn't need a ball that much) - Dray could've played 'his' role offensively on championship-level team basically only on Warriors historically. Whether it makes a big difference (Dray as a non-scoring big whose share in playmaking decreases from ~7 APG to ~4.3 APG, let's say) is another story, it's very much dependent on an era we talk about, with contemporary offenses - it does, in 2004 - probably not that much, there were many offensive scrubs out there and he would still have things that he's good at. That's why the difference between shooting and non-shooting Dray is that significant in my eyes - and I believe it would be generally much more visible if he didn't find himself in hyper-optimal situation in terms of a fit with Curry and Kerr's system.
Again the "kind of obvious" thing here basically only works if you ignore that Duncan got star-level impact defensively while Manu does not. If Manu wasn't getting maximized next to Duncan, then his "overall impact" is clearly more context-dependent than Draymond's is.
If Manu wasn't maximized next to Duncan and yet he is ~top50 player of alltime based on him playing his whole prime alongside Duncan, then he's underrated. My point was much simpler though, Manu doesn't have to play alongside Duncan for his skillset to be 'optimized' (to do things he's great at) - he can do basically the same, more or less, alongside Jokic (Murray) or LeBron (Williams, Wade, Irving), as even with all-time great offensive anchors you need offensive talent alongside. Playing with all-time great player such as TD is certainly helpful to win some rings, but this is another story.
But it's getting a bit offtopic vs what OP asked about - and I think my answer is quite inclusive, in this sense that I can imagine having one-year peak of Dray ahead of Manu. If you interpret 'peak' as longer period of time, then my answer is Manu. And not because Green wasn't a great player for a longer sample size than a season or so, but in his prime-not very peak years he wouldn't be AS GOOD as he was with Steph/Warriors' system, as even for defensive specialist - the other side of the floor matters. Even 2016 Green wouldn't be as good in basically every other scenario, but he was shooting really well that year, so he still would've been a dream fit for any all-time great guard or forward. Other than that? As above. It's obviously two-way argument (someone may argue about his superiority based on the same thing: him being able to fit in a Warriors' system), but we are in the (discussing) world of interpretation.
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
- AdagioPace
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,875
- And1: 7,421
- Joined: Jan 03, 2017
- Location: Contado di Molise
-
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
OhayoKD wrote:cupcakesnake wrote:I also disagree with Draymond being more portable.
Draymond will bring that monster defense and provide value wherever he goes, but any other offensive situation is a more awkward fit for him than Golden State. He'll always grease the wheels some with his playmaking, screening, and smart movement... but it will also always be awkward that not only can he not shoot, but he's never a scoring threat anywhere on the floor in any kind of action. I don't like to give him too much credit for a single season of solid 3-point shooting (2016) and a single post season run (2017). The media was slow to react to the reality that Draymond couldn't actually shoot, but we don't have to be! His own confidence in his shot (and his drives) shriveled up fast. I'm not saying Draymond needed to be in Golden State to provide value, just that the offensive side of the equation only gets more awkward in any other situation.
This only matters if Draymond's defense alone is not suffecient to provide great impact. Given that pretty much any data has the bulk of Draymond's value coming from the defensive end...I don't really see much relevance with your skill-criticism. Draymond's primary value add is that he is an a to b+ paint-protector among bigs(bball index), an extremely versatile as a man defender, and orginaizes defenses(and offenses) as a floor general on the court or on the bench. None of that is really teammate dependent. For comparison...I don't see a situation where Manu is an awkward fit on either side of the ball. If it's a team that already has primary playmakers, Manu can add value as a spot-up shooter, close out attacker, and genius level extra playmaker. Oh and if you ever need him to scale up to become your main ball handling decision maker... he can do that at a superstar level (in limited minutes).
"extra playmakers" are inherently less valuable than primary playmakers. Just like becoming a spot-up shooter is a big value drop from being someone the defenses primarily focus on. The problem isn't that manu can't adapt. The problem is the adaption instantly drains him of his impact in a way surrounding draymond with defensive players does not.
His "weakness" is he's a role player on the end of the floor that translates the easiest and a star on the end where stars are a dime a dozen.
It's the same reason Kareem and Lebron exert impact rivalling anyone in situations they're not optimized(as in literally playing with a smaller version of the same sort of player), and Duncan and Russell were winning regardless of system or coach.
The conception of "portablity" popularized here and elsewhere only works if you ignore defense. Curry was never the most portable player ever. Nor was Bird. Nor was Jordan. Nor was Durant. You don't belong in that conversation if you can't carry defenses.
In other words, Draymond is best-in-the-league-level at one full side of the game.
I feel like Manu could be considered above Draymond at their peaks only if we think of Draymond as a contextual collective allucination, vulnerable to mood changes based on team success. On the other hand Manu was a wrath of God, regardless of contexts, between summer 04 and summer 05. Manu has more experience as a valuable leading piece in a variety of situations, from Bologna to Argentina.
I can see Manu's talent advantage,incredible intelligence and adaptation spirit being less prone to fluctuations, despite Draymond's defense being inherently more portable as you say.
Peak Draymond for a bunch of already established teams is perfect but I don't trust him scaling back as a "person", rather than a top defender.
"La natura gode della natura; la natura trionfa sulla natura; la natura domina la natura" - Ostanes
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,042
- And1: 3,932
- Joined: Jun 22, 2022
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
The Master wrote:OhayoKD wrote:The bulk of Draymond's total impact is defensive. Thus "kind of obvious" to you that draymond not playing "with a bunch of great off-ball players" would not be nearly as damanging to his total impact as say, Manu Ginobli playing next to a player who can only effectively anchor the offensive side of the court, ala, Steph Curry, Kobe Bryant, Micheal Jordan, Magic Johnson, Kyrie Irving.
Manu (highly efficient two-way player with great handles and decent shooting-playmaking combo) would be highly efficient alongside any of these guys. Whether it would be enough to win a championship is dependent on other factors (re: roster composition etc), but the same applies to Green. It's not like he would've been 12-3-3 type of a guy with Jordan on a team.
But efficiency does not drive impact. Efficient volume drives impact. You pointing out a bunch of different ways Manu can scale down the value he offers his team does not help your case. Yes Manu can become a role player, no that does not help your argument in the least. if manu is a secondary playmaker, he is not as valuable as he would be as a primary. If he is a spot-up shooter getting shots from someone else's gravity, he is not as valuable as a creator as he would be as the primary focus of opposing defenses.
2nd fiddles are less valuable than 1st fiddles. If you cannot scale down without losing impact, you are still situation-dependent.
The thing is Manu could've played 2nd-fiddle offensive role alongside any of these guys (the beauty of Manu is he didn't need a ball that much) - Dray could've played 'his' role offensively on championship-level team basically only on Warriors historically. Whether it makes a big difference (Dray as a non-scoring big whose share in playmaking decreases from ~7 APG to ~4.3 APG, let's say) is another story, it's very much dependent on an era we talk about, with contemporary offenses - it does, in 2004 - probably not that much, there were many offensive scrubs out there and he would still have things that he's good at. That's why the difference between shooting and non-shooting Dray is that significant in my eyes - and I believe it would be generally much more visible if he didn't find himself in hyper-optimal situation in terms of a fit with Curry and Kerr's system.
Whether it makes a big difference is the whole point. Draymond's warriors are improving by 11-wins in suboptimal context over large samples with him averaging a worse slashline than what you posted. (8, 7, 7). The question is not offensive counting numbers. It's impact. If Draymond can generate most of his impact going 8,7,7 then the jumpshot probably isn't as important as you think it is.
Again the "kind of obvious" thing here basically only works if you ignore that Duncan got star-level impact defensively while Manu does not. If Manu wasn't getting maximized next to Duncan, then his "overall impact" is clearly more context-dependent than Draymond's is.
If Manu wasn't maximized next to Duncan and yet he is ~top50 player of alltime based on him playing his whole prime alongside Duncan, then he's underrated.
This is either circular reasoning or ad-pop. If he is being rated top 50 on the basis that it's harder to have impact next to a player whose skillset doesn't overlap with yours, then maybe he shouldn't be getting rated top 50 in the first place. He also has strong longetivity which isn't really the scope of this discussion.
My point was much simpler though, Manu doesn't have to play alongside Duncan for his skillset to be 'optimized' (to do things he's great at) - he can do basically the same, more or less, alongside Jokic (Murray) or LeBron (Williams, Wade, Irving), as even with all-time great offensive anchors you need offensive talent alongside. Playing with all-time great player such as TD is certainly helpful to win some rings, but this is another story.
But he can't "basically do the same, more or less"
Manu's creation is predominantly on-ball. He obviously needs the ball to shoot. And he obviously needs the ball to draw double-teams. Steph Curry gets most of his value on-ball. Unless Manu has learnt how to control objects with his mind, he is going to experience diminishing returns with other high-volume scorers, ball-handlers, and creators.
He also needs to be the recipent of passes and to have teammates set screens for him. Draymond doesn't need the ball to deter offensive players. He doesn't need the ball to call out the opposing scheme. He doesn't even need to be on the court to tell a defender where to go(like we saw him doing vs the Lakers)
With all-time offensive players you typically need offense and defensive talent besides. And not "all-d guard" talent, but a collection of strong defenders or a...draymond-calibre defender. And of course the bar you are using("he will have some value") is not sufficient to compete with Draymond whose bar is literally("retain the vast majority of your value")
Your point is simple. It's also baseless and even if I granted it as true would not actually lead to the conclusion you were arguing for. Either Manu retains as much value as a defensive specialist does or he doesn't. You're the one making this complicated. The scoreboard cares not for even skill-set distribution.
But it's getting a bit offtopic vs what OP asked about - and I think my answer is quite inclusive, in this sense that I can imagine having one-year peak of Dray ahead of Manu. If you interpret 'peak' as longer period of time, then my answer is Manu. And not because Green wasn't a great player for a longer sample size than a season or so, but in his prime-not very peak years he wouldn't be AS GOOD as he was with Steph/Warriors' system,
But he doesn't need to be as good. He just needs to be better than Manu in his not 2016 equivalents and/or when Manu is playing with the more common type of star whose skillset does overlap with the bulk of his. Why are you using a higher standard for Draymond than Manu?
as even for defensive specialist - the other side of the floor matters. Even 2016 Green wouldn't be as good in basically every other scenario, but he was shooting really well that year, so he still would've been a dream fit for any all-time great guard or forward. Other than that? As above. It's obviously two-way argument (someone may argue about his superiority based on the same thing: him being able to fit in a Warriors' system), but we are in the (discussing) world of interpretation.
Interpretation requires something to interpret. The Warriors were 11-wins worse in games without 8/7/7 Draymond but based on some made-up hypothetical 11/7/8 and 10/7/8 Draymond wasn't that guy.
Also I guess I should have watched closer because Manu apparently doesn't use the ball when he passes or shoots or handles it...
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
- cupcakesnake
- Senior Mod- WNBA
- Posts: 15,295
- And1: 31,536
- Joined: Jul 21, 2016
-
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
OhayoKD wrote:cupcakesnake wrote:I also disagree with Draymond being more portable.
Draymond will bring that monster defense and provide value wherever he goes, but any other offensive situation is a more awkward fit for him than Golden State. He'll always grease the wheels some with his playmaking, screening, and smart movement... but it will also always be awkward that not only can he not shoot, but he's never a scoring threat anywhere on the floor in any kind of action. I don't like to give him too much credit for a single season of solid 3-point shooting (2016) and a single post season run (2017). The media was slow to react to the reality that Draymond couldn't actually shoot, but we don't have to be! His own confidence in his shot (and his drives) shriveled up fast. I'm not saying Draymond needed to be in Golden State to provide value, just that the offensive side of the equation only gets more awkward in any other situation.
This only matters if Draymond's defense alone is not suffecient to provide great impact. Given that pretty much any data has the bulk of Draymond's value coming from the defensive end...I don't really see much relevance with your skill-criticism. Draymond's primary value add is that he is an a to b+ paint-protector among bigs(bball index), an extremely versatile as a man defender, and orginaizes defenses(and offenses) as a floor general on the court or on the bench. None of that is really teammate dependent. For comparison...I don't see a situation where Manu is an awkward fit on either side of the ball. If it's a team that already has primary playmakers, Manu can add value as a spot-up shooter, close out attacker, and genius level extra playmaker. Oh and if you ever need him to scale up to become your main ball handling decision maker... he can do that at a superstar level (in limited minutes).
"extra playmakers" are inherently less valuable than primary playmakers. Just like becoming a spot-up shooter is a big value drop from being someone the defenses primarily focus on. The problem isn't that manu can't adapt. The problem is the adaption instantly drains him of his impact in a way surrounding draymond with defensive players does not.
His "weakness" is he's a role player on the end of the floor that translates the easiest and a star on the end where stars are a dime a dozen.
It's the same reason Kareem and Lebron exert impact rivalling anyone in situations they're not optimized(as in literally playing with a smaller version of the same sort of player), and Duncan and Russell were winning regardless of system or coach.
The conception of "portablity" popularized here and elsewhere only works if you ignore defense. Curry was never the most portable player ever. Nor was Bird. Nor was Jordan. Nor was Durant. You don't belong in that conversation if you can't carry defenses.
I agree completely with the premise (defense being the most portable thing possible). I also agree with you that offensive stars are less rare that guys who can carry a defense. But Draymond is not Duncan or KG or even Russell (especially not relative to era in the latter's case) on offense. I'm not saying Draymond isn't portable, just that Manu fits anywhere and can provide value without ever really having to question the negatives. There are possible team configurations where Draymond's offense is damagingly negative.
We've only seen Draymond in a utopia. His strengths and weaknesses fit together like 2 sides of a zipper with his teammates strengths and weaknesses. None of us know for certain how much negative value Draymond might have on offense in another context, but his weaknesses are glaring enough that it at least deserves some doubt.
But I guess I'm curious how far you're willing to go with defensive portability being always better than the offensive version. Is Ben Wallace more portable than Curry? Is Nate Thurmond more portable than Durant? Gobert>Bird? I'm not asking this condescendingly or to prove a point, I'm genuinely curious where you think the line should be drawn.
I also think you're focusing to hard on the idea of Manu scaling down and naturally losing value. It gets brought up because some offensive stars scale down and lose all their value (guys who are only effective with the ball in their hands), while Manu can be paired with anyone in my mind. But this doesn't mean he doesn't scale up just as well. Whether it's the 4th quarter in San Antonio, or the Argentinean National team playing against the USA, Manu demonstrated some ability to have an entire offense built around his unique skills. I get that you're pushing back on the idea that scaling down maybe gets over celebrated without accounting for the loss, but players like Manu can do both. Also Manu is providing big plus defense in any scenario as well. Not Draymond-level anchoring or any kind of anchoring, but he can be the second or third best defender in a championship lineup.
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."
Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 22,395
- And1: 18,827
- Joined: Mar 08, 2012
-
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
AdagioPace wrote:OhayoKD wrote:cupcakesnake wrote:I also disagree with Draymond being more portable.
Draymond will bring that monster defense and provide value wherever he goes, but any other offensive situation is a more awkward fit for him than Golden State. He'll always grease the wheels some with his playmaking, screening, and smart movement... but it will also always be awkward that not only can he not shoot, but he's never a scoring threat anywhere on the floor in any kind of action. I don't like to give him too much credit for a single season of solid 3-point shooting (2016) and a single post season run (2017). The media was slow to react to the reality that Draymond couldn't actually shoot, but we don't have to be! His own confidence in his shot (and his drives) shriveled up fast. I'm not saying Draymond needed to be in Golden State to provide value, just that the offensive side of the equation only gets more awkward in any other situation.
This only matters if Draymond's defense alone is not suffecient to provide great impact. Given that pretty much any data has the bulk of Draymond's value coming from the defensive end...I don't really see much relevance with your skill-criticism. Draymond's primary value add is that he is an a to b+ paint-protector among bigs(bball index), an extremely versatile as a man defender, and orginaizes defenses(and offenses) as a floor general on the court or on the bench. None of that is really teammate dependent. For comparison...I don't see a situation where Manu is an awkward fit on either side of the ball. If it's a team that already has primary playmakers, Manu can add value as a spot-up shooter, close out attacker, and genius level extra playmaker. Oh and if you ever need him to scale up to become your main ball handling decision maker... he can do that at a superstar level (in limited minutes).
"extra playmakers" are inherently less valuable than primary playmakers. Just like becoming a spot-up shooter is a big value drop from being someone the defenses primarily focus on. The problem isn't that manu can't adapt. The problem is the adaption instantly drains him of his impact in a way surrounding draymond with defensive players does not.
His "weakness" is he's a role player on the end of the floor that translates the easiest and a star on the end where stars are a dime a dozen.
It's the same reason Kareem and Lebron exert impact rivalling anyone in situations they're not optimized(as in literally playing with a smaller version of the same sort of player), and Duncan and Russell were winning regardless of system or coach.
The conception of "portablity" popularized here and elsewhere only works if you ignore defense. Curry was never the most portable player ever. Nor was Bird. Nor was Jordan. Nor was Durant. You don't belong in that conversation if you can't carry defenses.
In other words, Draymond is best-in-the-league-level at one full side of the game.
I feel like Manu could be considered above Draymond at their peaks only if we think of Draymond as a contextual collective allucination, vulnerable to mood changes based on team success. On the other hand Manu was a wrath of God, regardless of contexts, between summer 04 and summer 05. Manu has more experience as a valuable leading piece in a variety of situations, from Bologna to Argentina.
I can see Manu's talent advantage,incredible intelligence and adaptation spirit being less prone to fluctuations, despite Draymond's defense being inherently more portable as you say.
Peak Draymond for a bunch of already established teams is perfect but I don't trust him scaling back as a "person", rather than a top defender.
Hasn't Rudy Gobert been the best defender in the league as well? Do you feel that he has peaked higher and is more portable than Ginobili?
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,042
- And1: 3,932
- Joined: Jun 22, 2022
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
cupcakesnake wrote:OhayoKD wrote:cupcakesnake wrote:I also disagree with Draymond being more portable.
Draymond will bring that monster defense and provide value wherever he goes, but any other offensive situation is a more awkward fit for him than Golden State. He'll always grease the wheels some with his playmaking, screening, and smart movement... but it will also always be awkward that not only can he not shoot, but he's never a scoring threat anywhere on the floor in any kind of action. I don't like to give him too much credit for a single season of solid 3-point shooting (2016) and a single post season run (2017). The media was slow to react to the reality that Draymond couldn't actually shoot, but we don't have to be! His own confidence in his shot (and his drives) shriveled up fast. I'm not saying Draymond needed to be in Golden State to provide value, just that the offensive side of the equation only gets more awkward in any other situation.
This only matters if Draymond's defense alone is not suffecient to provide great impact. Given that pretty much any data has the bulk of Draymond's value coming from the defensive end...I don't really see much relevance with your skill-criticism. Draymond's primary value add is that he is an a to b+ paint-protector among bigs(bball index), an extremely versatile as a man defender, and orginaizes defenses(and offenses) as a floor general on the court or on the bench. None of that is really teammate dependent. For comparison...I don't see a situation where Manu is an awkward fit on either side of the ball. If it's a team that already has primary playmakers, Manu can add value as a spot-up shooter, close out attacker, and genius level extra playmaker. Oh and if you ever need him to scale up to become your main ball handling decision maker... he can do that at a superstar level (in limited minutes).
"extra playmakers" are inherently less valuable than primary playmakers. Just like becoming a spot-up shooter is a big value drop from being someone the defenses primarily focus on. The problem isn't that manu can't adapt. The problem is the adaption instantly drains him of his impact in a way surrounding draymond with defensive players does not.
His "weakness" is he's a role player on the end of the floor that translates the easiest and a star on the end where stars are a dime a dozen.
It's the same reason Kareem and Lebron exert impact rivalling anyone in situations they're not optimized(as in literally playing with a smaller version of the same sort of player), and Duncan and Russell were winning regardless of system or coach.
The conception of "portablity" popularized here and elsewhere only works if you ignore defense. Curry was never the most portable player ever. Nor was Bird. Nor was Jordan. Nor was Durant. You don't belong in that conversation if you can't carry defenses.
I agree completely with the premise (defense being the most portable thing possible). I also agree with you that offensive stars are less rare that guys who can carry a defense. But Draymond is not Duncan or KG or even Russell (especially not relative to era in the latter's case) on offense. I'm not saying Draymond isn't portable, just that Manu fits anywhere and can provide value without ever really having to question the negatives. There are possible team configurations where Draymond's offense is damagingly negative.
We've only seen Draymond in a utopia. His strengths and weaknesses fit together like 2 sides of a zipper with his teammates strengths and weaknesses. None of us know for certain how much negative value Draymond might have on offense in another context, but his weaknesses are glaring enough that it at least deserves some doubt.
Okay I get the theory here but I'm not sure this really works in practice. Like okay. The league where not being able to shoot or have strong scoring would be the most negative would be this iteration.
A. How many teams can you think of today where Draymond is a negative let alone a glaringly negative player offensively?
B. How many of those teams would you expect to even make the playoffs with their current roster?
Also, as i've brought up before, unless you are calling the 20-23 Warriors utopia, we have some proof of concept for Draymond here:
Spoiler:
But I guess I'm curious how far you're willing to go with defensive portability being always better than the offensive version. Is Ben Wallace more portable than Curry? Is Nate Thumond more portable than Durant? Gobert>Bird? I'm not asking this condescendingly or to prove a point, I'm genuinely curious where you think the line should be drawn.
In his respective league? I think Thurmond's value translates very well on any team assuming he is willing to shoot less if instructed to(which has been the subject of some debate iirc) The worst fit is probably Wilt but that doesn't seem too different from starting Steph next to Chris Paul:

(The Warriors are having Steph play more minutes without than with...)
Would favor Gobert strongly. I mean, he's retained his value on a team with another center who is also stay-at-home defensively. I guess there's a fair question if that can maintain during the playoffs(and Gobert's lack of offense has been exploited) but Bird's teams also tend to drop in the playoffs as well.
I think a big thing alot of people miss when assessing Bird is that Mchale allowed Bird to play like a PF on offense and an SF on defense because he was a strong rim-protector who could also handle the ball very well. That's an easier roster to construct today but I think those sorts of players are still harder to find than players who can score good and draw attention off-ball.
I also think you're focusing to hard on the idea of Manu scaling down and naturally losing value. It gets brought up because some offensive stars scale down and lose all their value (guys who are only effective with the ball in their hands), while Manu can be paired with anyone in my mind. But this doesn't mean he doesn't scale up just as well. Whether it's the 4th quarter in San Antonio, or the Argentinean National team playing against the USA, Manu demonstrated some ability to have an entire offense built around his unique skills. I get that you're pushing back on the idea that scaling down maybe gets over celebrated without accounting for the loss, but players like Manu can do both. Also Manu is providing big plus defense in any scenario as well. Not Draymond-level anchoring or any kind of anchoring, but he can be the second or third best defender in a championship lineup.
1. I think you can argue for that, but that doesn't seem to be a matter of port, but just straight up believing Manu's cieling as a player is higher than Draymond. And yeah, I think you can reasonably argue a high-end evaluation(so ignore the wowy stuff or the minutes disparity and trust in his rapm more and then say Pop didn't use him) or manu in his best situation may be more valuable(and we just didn't see it), but that is different from his value being more situational(which is what I'd say portablity is about and what the the master was originally claiming).
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
- AdagioPace
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,875
- And1: 7,421
- Joined: Jan 03, 2017
- Location: Contado di Molise
-
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
HeartBreakKid wrote:Hasn't Rudy Gobert been the best defender in the league as well? Do you feel that he has peaked higher and is more portable than Ginobili?
This thread is interesting only because even Draymond, besides his huge defensive value, is a swiss-army-knife kind of player as well. Gobert, as a phenomenal defender, might even be more portable than Manu, but my spurs brain would never even entertain the idea of taking Gobert over Manu.

"La natura gode della natura; la natura trionfa sulla natura; la natura domina la natura" - Ostanes
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,042
- And1: 3,932
- Joined: Jun 22, 2022
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
HeartBreakKid wrote:AdagioPace wrote:OhayoKD wrote:This only matters if Draymond's defense alone is not suffecient to provide great impact. Given that pretty much any data has the bulk of Draymond's value coming from the defensive end...I don't really see much relevance with your skill-criticism. Draymond's primary value add is that he is an a to b+ paint-protector among bigs(bball index), an extremely versatile as a man defender, and orginaizes defenses(and offenses) as a floor general on the court or on the bench. None of that is really teammate dependent. For comparison...
"extra playmakers" are inherently less valuable than primary playmakers. Just like becoming a spot-up shooter is a big value drop from being someone the defenses primarily focus on. The problem isn't that manu can't adapt. The problem is the adaption instantly drains him of his impact in a way surrounding draymond with defensive players does not.
His "weakness" is he's a role player on the end of the floor that translates the easiest and a star on the end where stars are a dime a dozen.
It's the same reason Kareem and Lebron exert impact rivalling anyone in situations they're not optimized(as in literally playing with a smaller version of the same sort of player), and Duncan and Russell were winning regardless of system or coach.
The conception of "portablity" popularized here and elsewhere only works if you ignore defense. Curry was never the most portable player ever. Nor was Bird. Nor was Jordan. Nor was Durant. You don't belong in that conversation if you can't carry defenses.
In other words, Draymond is best-in-the-league-level at one full side of the game.
I feel like Manu could be considered above Draymond at their peaks only if we think of Draymond as a contextual collective allucination, vulnerable to mood changes based on team success. On the other hand Manu was a wrath of God, regardless of contexts, between summer 04 and summer 05. Manu has more experience as a valuable leading piece in a variety of situations, from Bologna to Argentina.
I can see Manu's talent advantage,incredible intelligence and adaptation spirit being less prone to fluctuations, despite Draymond's defense being inherently more portable as you say.
Peak Draymond for a bunch of already established teams is perfect but I don't trust him scaling back as a "person", rather than a top defender.
Hasn't Rudy Gobert been the best defender in the league as well? Do you feel that he has peaked higher and is more portable than Ginobili?
Pretty sure he did for the regular-season but Manu's steelman argument vs Gobert(and Draymond to a degree) would be centered around the postseason where he has the best looking on/off, and there is a "look at how the team did when he gained primacy" as well as a small wowy sample.
As for off-court antics, yeah you can argue that. But there is a trade-off here because draymond does alot Manu does not do which can positively impact a lockeroom long-term(helping develop players, trying to get stars to join(he's the one who got kd). Manu to my knowledge isn't doing any of that(or at least isn't reported doing it).
Draymond is plausibly the "leader" of the Warriors(which may play into why the Warriors go soft on him). Don't think you can say the same for Manu. Does the negatives of that greater power outweigh the positives? Maybe. But you have to weigh the two against each other because Draymond is doing things that tangibly benefit his team outside of his play.
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,827
- And1: 5,031
- Joined: Jan 14, 2013
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
A 10-10 tie is very funny, I can’t wait to make a draymond or harden thread
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,265
- And1: 2,270
- Joined: Jul 01, 2022
-
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
MyUniBroDavis wrote:A 10-10 tie is very funny, I can’t wait to make a draymond or harden thread
Unironically, how many Brick Ross seasons were better than 16 Draymond?
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,265
- And1: 2,270
- Joined: Jul 01, 2022
-
Re: Peak manu vs peak draymond
Single season, I would say Draymond. Coming from one who loathes Draymond and is a fan of Manu. When Green wasn’t passive on offense and had the threat of his jump shot (regardless of how it looked), he was a tangible + on O while being able to fill in the areas that took GSW’s offense from good to great. Defense for him should speak for itself
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.