Jayson Taytum vs Peak Draymond

[tsherkin]

I think it's going too far to act like a player who's been around 4th/5th best player in the league in Tatum and best player on a dominant champion isn't in the convo with Draymond. Tatum is easily better on offense than Draymond and while not DPOY, is pretty solid himself. You could convince me that the Warriors in 17 and 18 are as good with Tatum as Durant.

But are they as good with Tatum instead of Draymond?

But that's a fit argument, right? You can have a bunch of guys of differing talent levels but the fit on a specific roster can vary. Golden State needed Draymond's defense and playmaking a lot more than the difference in his scoring ability relative to Tatum, for example.

[Joao Saraiva]

I actually think Tatum is being a bit undervalued. He's not the typical star but he usually does the small stuff, and his offense as a roll player is actually pretty good. He screens hard, he's willing to pass and he's a good enough scorer. I don't see him as a negative on offense. (EDIT: I meant defense)

Draymond is very good but he was in an ideal situation. Tatum is much more suitable for a ton of situations than I think Draymond is. I'm going Tatum here.

[tsherkin]

I actually think Tatum is being a bit undervalued. He's not the typical star but he usually does the small stuff, and his offense as a roll player is actually pretty good. He screens hard, he's willing to pass and he's a good enough scorer. I don't see him as a negative on offense.

Draymond is very good but he was in an ideal situation. Tatum is much more suitable for a ton of situations than I think Draymond is. I'm going Tatum here.

I think Tatum is the better overall player. Draymond was considerably better-suited to Golden State very specifically, though.

[ShotCreator]

Boi is ya sick?

Draymond is a high end role player even at his peak. Dude was never a all-star caliber player despite making a all-star team.

I'm one of the biggest Tatum haters on this board, but this is disrespectful to him to put Draymond in the same conversation as him as a player.

I could quote the array of stats which demonstrate how absurd this take is but why even bother. Anyone who believes what you wrote is too far gone to be saved in the realm of NBA analysis.

You telling me you put peak Draymond with his own team as the best player they would have success?

He already did. The 2015 and 2016 GS Warriors.

[tsherkin]

He already did. The 2015 and 2016 GS Warriors.

He was not the best player on either of those teams...

[KingofTheClay]

I actually think Tatum is being a bit undervalued. He's not the typical star but he usually does the small stuff, and his offense as a roll player is actually pretty good. He screens hard, he's willing to pass and he's a good enough scorer. I don't see him as a negative on offense.

Draymond is very good but he was in an ideal situation. Tatum is much more suitable for a ton of situations than I think Draymond is. I'm going Tatum here.

If a team has two top scorers like Lavine and Markannen, who in a vacuum are good players but don’t usually foster a sense of identity/cohesion and are not typically conducive to winning...Draymond makes them contenders instantly. All you have to do with Draymond is get two top 25 scorers, at any position, and he will make you contenders. Tatum doesn’t do that.

With Tatum you need another top 15 player and like 2-3 top 40 players. Pretty much have Brad form the most well-balanced team in league history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joctor Day]

Draymond, easily. Arguably more important than Steph in the Warriors run. Tatum can't even be strongly argued as the best player on this Celtics team.

[JimmyFromNz]

I'm pretty ambivalent about the comparison, I can see the overall argument for Draymond to an extent, the combination of elite defense and plug and play attributes was immensely valuable.

What I can't see any clear, rationale or illustrated argument for is Draymond being a better offensive player than Tatum, let alone being the best/most important player on the Warriors during their run.

Where is the comparative evidence to support being better offensively than Tatum, buffered by the obvious need to address contextual considerations of Draymond playing alongside two of the best shooters to step foot on a basketball court i.e. the foundation for many of the playmaking numbers I'm assume an argument is based on (it surely couldn't be based on anything else).

Where is the considered argument to outline Draymond was better than a consensus top 15 player of all time playing at his peak?

Do these questions sound a little exasperated? Yeah maybe!

[ShotCreator]

He already did. The 2015 and 2016 GS Warriors.

He was not the best player on either of those teams...

He was definitely their best player in the playoffs.

The 2015 Warriors won mostly on their defensive performance in the postseason.

-4.8 defensive result. And a +3.2 offensive result. So to begin with, Curry's unquestioned team-leading here doesn't add up to reality if you look at the team performance splits.

Now, maybe GS has more defenders. Maybe they didn't have much offensive support after Curry...I don't buy that. They were a +10 team. And a +6 offense in the RS. And only a -4 defense. So we're talking a tiers worth a drop-off here.

Now what accounts for that? Well, if you look at it statistically, every single player in the GS Warriors rotation performed worse offensively in the postseason judging by PER and OBPM...Except Draymond and Iguodala. I've made posts here saying offensively, you should expect a drop from every single player in the postseason. It's much higher level basketball. But Draymond didn't see this drop. Which means his offense was even more effective than in the RS.

And the impact metrics bare this out. 538 RAPTOR offense in the RS: +1.5 | PS: +3.1


Draymond kept his scoring up to the same level as the RS, and actually led the team's playmaking duties to the same degree as Curry in the postseason. Curry was by far their most important passer in the RS. He had a better year there than LeBron. But it shrank significantly in the playoffs. Same for Klay.

RAPTOR picked up on the impact of this as they went from +9.5 and +4.3 offensively to +5.7 and 3.3.

But it gets deeper.

When Draymond was on the court, GS dominated on whole, and when he wasn't literally no combination of players could get GS to function at an elite level on either end.

Curry on, no Draymond: 101.9 ORTG, 106.2 DRTG (135 minutes) -4.3 per 100 poss

Even more significantly:

Curry, Klay, Igoudala on, Draymond off: 98.1 ORTG, 110.6 DRTG (51 minutes) -12.5 per 100 poss,

Draymond on, Curry off: 117.7 ORTG, 107.4 DRTG (95 minutes), +10.3 per 100 poss

Curry on, Draymond on: 109.3ORTG , 96.9 DRTG (691 minutes), +12.4 per 100 poss

What gets me, is how dominant GS was offensively, without Curry and with Draymond. And I think it's because Draymond spent most of those minutes without Bogut on the floor. Putting Draymond at his optimal position at center. While being able to handle the ball more.

Draymond's AST per 75 poss w/ Curry: 5.7

w/out Curry: 7.1

But what's really telling is quality of assists. Draymond with Curry out there only had 1.8 at-rim assists per 75 poss. Less than half of his total assists.

But without Curry, his at-rim assists exploded to 4.4 assists per 75 possessions. More than half his total assists. For comparison 21-23 Jokic is at 8.4 assists per 75 and 3.75 at-rim assists.


https://www.82games.com/1415/14GSW9.HTM

https://www.82games.com/1516/15GSW11.HTM

And you can see there, how much better he is at getting to put pressure on the rim without a big clogging the lane. His scoring and playmaking goes up dramatically. In a true space and pace lineup, Draymond is the best big man on the planet in this pre-Jokic era.

The story of the Finals became about Lebron's volume, and Igoudala's shooting and defense on him. But to me it's clear it was simply about moving Draymond to the 5. By swapping Iggy for Bogut. Something they went to a lot more the next season, and we know how that ended.

Draymond enabled the best: team, lineup, playoff defense, and offense of an entire decade by just simply playing center for 3 years there from 15-17.

So to summarize, Draymond is very, very resilient on both ends, can scale his scoring and passing game up in significantly in optimal lineups, and is a stronger defender than usual against teams in the playoffs he can actually focus in on and scheme against to the point of leading GS to a higher playoff DRTG than in the RS, while playing his second-best defender(Bogut) less, and him MORE.


This continued in 2016. Where Draymond flat out carried GS through entire playoff run overall and scaled his offensive game up tremendously. So you can easily make a case Draymond was their best overall player in this time period. I also want to make note of much the actual play debunks a lot of the narratives and theories behind Draymond's dominance and his mythical reliance on Curry or anybody to play his style on either end. If anything, I think the synergy is more toward favoring Curry.

Draymond has proven time and time again, he's a better passer than Curry, and can really get into elite playmaking, with some usage and floor space. He's proven this in the postseason no less. Not in a tanking post-prime year like 2020 where even his defense wasn't at a high level.

All the stats can be found here: https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy/nba