Draymond Green is underrated

[Mikistan]

Like Ron arrest on the Lakers

Ron Artest was a little overrated on D, at least at that point in his career. And a considerably worse overall offensive player, so I don't find him too much of a parallel.

I made this comment more on the concept of ceiling raiser but not floor raiser as mentioned for draymond.

[tsherkin]

I made this comment more on the concept of ceiling raiser but not floor raiser as mentioned for draymond.

Yeah. But even then, Artest is a poor example because Ariza was better for the team overall in 09 than was MWP in 2010. But I take your point, regardless.

[SA37]

Guy who's skill set is so hard to replace you need to change your whole system to replace him..."role player".

Correct. He's a role player. Role players with unique skill sets can be hard to replace, but still be role players, which is precisely why 3 & D guys have been overpaid over the last 10-15 years.

The 3&D guys get paid because they are the most valuable players on the court after your elite scorers and/or play makers and rim protectors. They're also guys who...and wait for it. Have multiple roles! But we're stuck on this weird term that when translated, doesn't apply to virtually all the guys who get assigned to it. Might as well call MJ a pass first guy and call Stockton a shooter.

They came up with the term "3 & D" instead of just calling them 'a star' for a reason....And, yeah, they have multiple roles, as the term clearly implies.

I guess after Draymond and Gobert we have a tight race to fill out the the top-10 NBA list: Derrick Jones Jr, OG Anunoby, Mikal Bridges, Jaden McDaniels, Alex Caruso, Lu Dort, Aaron Nesmith, Toumani Camara, Dorian Finney Smith, and Herb Jones.

The most glaring difference between stars and role players is that stars are able to produce elite statistics consistently and do not require other guys to make them better. Role players aren't good enough to do this on a consistent basis.

Draymond Green proved he wasn't a star in any way, shape, or form when he didn't have elite players around him and had one of the worst seasons of his career 8-6-6 on 39-28-76. And that's why you've only seen him on the all-NBA team twice and on the all-star team 4 times. He lacks the consistency and the scoring ability, and he clearly needs to play with multiple players who are better than him to be effective.

Great role player, like Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Mutombo, or Gobert.

[70sFan]

Calling Mutombo, who anchored various teams to competitive 2nd round exits as the best player and co-anchored a finalist team, a role player is disgraceful for the sport of basketball. At this point, we can just end any basketball discussions.

[Mikistan]

Calling Mutombo, who anchored various teams to competitive 2nd round exits as the best player and co-anchored a finalist team, a role player is disgraceful for the sport of basketball. At this point, we can just end any basketball discussions.

Hyperbole is strong in this one

[zero rings]

Again, probably the best Team USA player ever (2nd all-time scorer in Team USA history) and 10th all-time NBA scorer. #37 all-time in PPG. I don't really see why you or anyone would argue to the contrary in the face of such clear facts. This just isn't a debate. It's not really relevant how efficient or all the ways he could/couldn't score; the guy could put the ball in the basket.

How is that not relevant?

Basketball is a game of limited possessions. The team that uses their possessions more efficiently than the other team wins the game.

You can dig into those weeds when comparing Carmelo to other elite scorers. But he's in the convo as one of the greatest scorers of all-time because of his scoring average and total points. Whether he is top-10/20/30 is debatable, but he's in the elite here.

There have been ~5,000 or so to ever play in the NBA/ABA. Melo is 12th all time in scoring; 10th if you only use the NBA. He's 37th all-time in points per game. That easily puts him in the top 1% of scorers in NBA history.

Career points is a measure of volume, not effectiveness. All that number tells me is that he took way more shots than most players of his talent level.

As dhsilv2 pointed out, Melo had a career TS ADD of +72. He took 22,643 shots and 7,764 free throws in his career, and he only netted his team an advantage of 72 points. That's not one of the greatest scorers of all time.

[mrmsix6]

He would be a complete nobody if he weren't surrounded by HOF players and GOAT level shooters his entire career.

Great roleplayer, absolutely. But by no means is he underrated. That's absurd.

[SA37]

How is that not relevant?

Basketball is a game of limited possessions. The team that uses their possessions more efficiently than the other team wins the game.

You can dig into those weeds when comparing Carmelo to other elite scorers. But he's in the convo as one of the greatest scorers of all-time because of his scoring average and total points. Whether he is top-10/20/30 is debatable, but he's in the elite here.

There have been ~5,000 or so to ever play in the NBA/ABA. Melo is 12th all time in scoring; 10th if you only use the NBA. He's 37th all-time in points per game. That easily puts him in the top 1% of scorers in NBA history.

Career points is a measure of volume, not effectiveness. All that number tells me is that he took way more shots than most players of his talent level.

As dhsilv2 pointed out, Melo had a career TS ADD of +72. He took 22,643 shots and 7,764 free throws in his career, and he only netted his team an advantage of 72 points. That's not one of the greatest scorers of all time.

Scoring = ball in the basket.

You want it to be more complicated than that, but it's not.

It might be shocking for you to find out that the top-5 scorers all-time are also top-5 -- in the exact same order -- in career field goal attempts (James, Jabbar, Malone, Bryant, Jordan). And if you look at the lists, you'll notice a pretty reliable correlation between career shot attempts and scoring. Spoiler: the guys who scored a lot, shot the ball a lot. All of them.

Again, you can argue about where he ranks -- in the 10-30 range, most likely -- but even if he were 100th, he'd still be a better scorer than 98% of the all the players to ever play professional basketball in the NBA or the ABA (got to leave room for guys like Oscar Schmidt who never made it to the NBA).

[___Rand___]

Fork Dray and all of his abilities. Anything that comes out of him including his orifices are feces.

[JimmyPlopper]

Fork Dray and all of his abilities. Anything that comes out of him including his orifices are feces.

Regarding Dray's abilities, I'm guessing you know about the cyborg implant in his neck and the fact that his car is covered in bumper stickers that promote a world without puppets

[dhsilv2]

Correct. He's a role player. Role players with unique skill sets can be hard to replace, but still be role players, which is precisely why 3 & D guys have been overpaid over the last 10-15 years.

The 3&D guys get paid because they are the most valuable players on the court after your elite scorers and/or play makers and rim protectors. They're also guys who...and wait for it. Have multiple roles! But we're stuck on this weird term that when translated, doesn't apply to virtually all the guys who get assigned to it. Might as well call MJ a pass first guy and call Stockton a shooter.

They came up with the term "3 & D" instead of just calling them 'a star' for a reason....And, yeah, they have multiple roles, as the term clearly implies.

I guess after Draymond and Gobert we have a tight race to fill out the the top-10 NBA list: Derrick Jones Jr, OG Anunoby, Mikal Bridges, Jaden McDaniels, Alex Caruso, Lu Dort, Aaron Nesmith, Toumani Camara, Dorian Finney Smith, and Herb Jones.

The most glaring difference between stars and role players is that stars are able to produce elite statistics consistently and do not require other guys to make them better. Role players aren't good enough to do this on a consistent basis.

Draymond Green proved he wasn't a star in any way, shape, or form when he didn't have elite players around him and had one of the worst seasons of his career 8-6-6 on 39-28-76. And that's why you've only seen him on the all-NBA team twice and on the all-star team 4 times. He lacks the consistency and the scoring ability, and he clearly needs to play with multiple players who are better than him to be effective.

Great role player, like Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Mutombo, or Gobert.

Well yes, they used 3&D because that's not a role player. 3 point specialists are role players. Defensive specialists are role players.

But no, none of those guys are role players. They're all for example better players than some middling scorer like Melo who puts up empty stats when his teams are poor. Those guys all put up great stats anywhere that has impact. Unless you pull one season where a guy missed half the year injured and was playing hurt in half the other games he played.

Back before this weird internet culture came about and you kids started describing anyone not named Jordan as role players, we had a perfect peak type role player in Steve Kerr. Kerr could dribble, defend, and pass just well enough to not cost his team games. He was on the court for one reason and one reason alone. he could shoot.

In all seriousness, I don't know what your issue with defense is. But it's just getting silly. Dray is the difference maker and among the best to ever play. He's certainly a better player than an AI or Melo.

[dhsilv2]

Calling Mutombo, who anchored various teams to competitive 2nd round exits as the best player and co-anchored a finalist team, a role player is disgraceful for the sport of basketball. At this point, we can just end any basketball discussions.

Not to mention Ben Wallace who was the biggest name and best player on the Pistons.

[michaelm]

OK...gives us 20 guys who are high IQ and elite defenders from the last 20 drafts. I'll wait...

J.Noah
Ibaka
Kawhi
AD
Gobert
Marcus Smart
Bridges
Wemby
Mobley
Jrue Holiday
OG
draymond obviously
JJJ
deandre jordan
giannis
Paul George
Kevin Durant (was elite in his prime)
igoudala
jdub
jaden mcdaniels

thats 20 just of the top off my head. im sure there are some that i forgot.

Now, i understand you gonna have your own definition of high bball iq.
But all these guys are elite in at least one aspect of defense and most of them are very good team- or scheme defenders, however you wanna call it. and that requires a certain amount of bball IQ. In general being an elite defender requires some bball iq. Im willing to concede the point tho because i know bball iq is not something we can measure properly other than the good ol' eye test. So i would accept if you said some of those are not known for their high iq. And draymond is likely one of the top guys on this list.

but other than that my point stands, i dont see anything that is special about draymond and if he was drafted to charlotte i dont think he'd still be in the league.

Well, if this is a list of elite defenders, lets just hold off on high BBIQ. Then I can see your issue. Putting KD and Jordan or perhaps Bridges is the better eample on here however means we aren't seeing elite the same way. They were very good defenders. You can' build a defense around them an expect it to be a top tier defense. I guess the clippers were pretty good 1 year under Jordan.

Since your name is "no stats guy" I'll try and avoid getting into stats, but just using numbers as a concept. Dray is a guy who reduces a team's scoring by something like 5 points per 100 (for his career). Jordan at his best maybe 2 and KD maybe if we round up he's near 2. In other words Draymond has TWICE the defensive value. The best offensive players ever for context the Jokic, Lebron, Curry types are perhaps enough to make their teams 7-8 better on offense.

So when I hear elite, I'm looking for Duncan, Deke, Gobert (as you listed), Ben Wallace, and so on. Dray is in that category.

As for BBIQ, while you can see it on defense sometimes it's hard to see. But we can look at Dray's passing. Much like he's no Curry in terms of his defense being equal to his offense. Lets not try and paint Dray as some Jokic type passer. He's far from that. But none the less he makes consistent high IQ reads in a very difficult system. The system the warrior's run has no official set plays in general. Players are simply moving to open space with some basic concepts in place. In that Dray makes consistent high leverages and high IQ passes. Now I get that someone like Gobert might just not have the hands for it. But Dray makes passes that guys like even Leonard, KD, and Giannis never see despite having the ball and having the scoring gravity to open up easier passes for them.

As for Dray being in the league or not...that's just silly. Great passing big men who play lock down defense have always found a place in the league. If you were saying he might not have had the accolades or be in the hall, that's reasonable. But again not in the league? 39 year old PJ Tucker was still in the league last year.

All four recent GSW title winning teams were elite defensively and much though he is my favourite ever player and likely to remain so that wasn’t down to Curry. Green also allows Curry to play the off ball role in which he excels and a list of highly elite defensive players who can play Green’s role offensively while being happy not to call his own number would be rather shorter than the recently posted list.

[SA37]

Spoiler:

The 3&D guys get paid because they are the most valuable players on the court after your elite scorers and/or play makers and rim protectors. They're also guys who...and wait for it. Have multiple roles! But we're stuck on this weird term that when translated, doesn't apply to virtually all the guys who get assigned to it. Might as well call MJ a pass first guy and call Stockton a shooter.

They came up with the term "3 & D" instead of just calling them 'a star' for a reason....And, yeah, they have multiple roles, as the term clearly implies.

I guess after Draymond and Gobert we have a tight race to fill out the the top-10 NBA list: Derrick Jones Jr, OG Anunoby, Mikal Bridges, Jaden McDaniels, Alex Caruso, Lu Dort, Aaron Nesmith, Toumani Camara, Dorian Finney Smith, and Herb Jones.

The most glaring difference between stars and role players is that stars are able to produce elite statistics consistently and do not require other guys to make them better. Role players aren't good enough to do this on a consistent basis.

Draymond Green proved he wasn't a star in any way, shape, or form when he didn't have elite players around him and had one of the worst seasons of his career 8-6-6 on 39-28-76. And that's why you've only seen him on the all-NBA team twice and on the all-star team 4 times. He lacks the consistency and the scoring ability, and he clearly needs to play with multiple players who are better than him to be effective.

Great role player, like Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Mutombo, or Gobert.

Well yes, they used 3&D because that's not a role player. 3 point specialists are role players. Defensive specialists are role players.

But no, none of those guys are role players. They're all for example better players than some middling scorer like Melo who puts up empty stats when his teams are poor. Those guys all put up great stats anywhere that has impact. Unless you pull one season where a guy missed half the year injured and was playing hurt in half the other games he played.

Back before this weird internet culture came about and you kids started describing anyone not named Jordan as role players, we had a perfect peak type role player in Steve Kerr. Kerr could dribble, defend, and pass just well enough to not cost his team games. He was on the court for one reason and one reason alone. he could shoot.

In all seriousness, I don't know what your issue with defense is. But it's just getting silly. Dray is the difference maker and among the best to ever play. He's certainly a better player than an AI or Melo.

3 & D doesn't make you something other than a role player. It's there because it is a unique skillset. Unique skillset doesn't mean you're not a role player.

Derrick Jones Jr, OG Anunoby, Mikal Bridges, Jaden McDaniels, Alex Caruso, Lu Dort, Aaron Nesmith, Toumani Camara, Dorian Finney Smith, and Herb Jones are all role players.

Bridges and Anunoby -- like Draymond -- straddle the role player/all-star line, but their lack of consistency keeps them from being firmly in the "all-star" category, so perhaps a more accurate description is "borderline all-star", even if this is still an optimistic framing considering Anunoby has 0 all-star appearances in 9 seasons, Bridges has 0 in 7 seasons and Green has been an all-star 4 times in 13 seasons. (And I'll point out Bridges and Anunoby are taking turns with Hart for 3rd fiddle behind KAT and Brunson, aka the actual stars, which is like Green rotating 3rd fiddle with Wiggins and Iguodala behind the stars, aka Curry, Durant, and Thompson.)

I don't have an issue with "defense", but players who only excel at that side of the ball are just as deficient as the offensive players who only excel on that side of the ball. And if I am starting a team and have to choose between taking D Green/Mutombo/Gobert or AI/Melo/Harden, I am taking AI/Melo/Harden.

[dhsilv2]

Spoiler:

They came up with the term "3 & D" instead of just calling them 'a star' for a reason....And, yeah, they have multiple roles, as the term clearly implies.

I guess after Draymond and Gobert we have a tight race to fill out the the top-10 NBA list: Derrick Jones Jr, OG Anunoby, Mikal Bridges, Jaden McDaniels, Alex Caruso, Lu Dort, Aaron Nesmith, Toumani Camara, Dorian Finney Smith, and Herb Jones.

The most glaring difference between stars and role players is that stars are able to produce elite statistics consistently and do not require other guys to make them better. Role players aren't good enough to do this on a consistent basis.

Draymond Green proved he wasn't a star in any way, shape, or form when he didn't have elite players around him and had one of the worst seasons of his career 8-6-6 on 39-28-76. And that's why you've only seen him on the all-NBA team twice and on the all-star team 4 times. He lacks the consistency and the scoring ability, and he clearly needs to play with multiple players who are better than him to be effective.

Great role player, like Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Mutombo, or Gobert.

Well yes, they used 3&D because that's not a role player. 3 point specialists are role players. Defensive specialists are role players.

But no, none of those guys are role players. They're all for example better players than some middling scorer like Melo who puts up empty stats when his teams are poor. Those guys all put up great stats anywhere that has impact. Unless you pull one season where a guy missed half the year injured and was playing hurt in half the other games he played.

Back before this weird internet culture came about and you kids started describing anyone not named Jordan as role players, we had a perfect peak type role player in Steve Kerr. Kerr could dribble, defend, and pass just well enough to not cost his team games. He was on the court for one reason and one reason alone. he could shoot.

In all seriousness, I don't know what your issue with defense is. But it's just getting silly. Dray is the difference maker and among the best to ever play. He's certainly a better player than an AI or Melo.

3 & D doesn't make you something other than a role player. It's there because it is a unique skillset. Unique skillset doesn't mean you're not a role player.

Derrick Jones Jr, OG Anunoby, Mikal Bridges, Jaden McDaniels, Alex Caruso, Lu Dort, Aaron Nesmith, Toumani Camara, Dorian Finney Smith, and Herb Jones are all role players.

Bridges and Anunoby -- like Draymond -- straddle the role player/all-star line, but their lack of consistency keeps them from being firmly in the "all-star" category, so perhaps a more accurate description is "borderline all-star", even if this is still an optimistic framing considering Anunoby has 0 all-star appearances in 9 seasons, Bridges has 0 in 7 seasons and Green has been an all-star 4 times in 13 seasons. (And I'll point out Bridges and Anunoby are taking turns with Hart for 3rd fiddle behind KAT and Brunson, aka the actual stars, which is like Green rotating 3rd fiddle with Wiggins and Iguodala behind the stars, aka Curry, Durant, and Thompson.)

3 and D is a unique combination of MULTIPLE skillsets. The s there at the end is what historically would separate role player from quality starter, very good player, or whatever term you'd use.

But now...wait so now a 3 and D player...who isn't even very good on D is a star?

You've literally called multiple guys who were the best or co best players on teams in the finals, role players. Now a very good shooter, who does nothing else is a star. While Green...who you've even admitted is so good, if he left a championship level team would have to completely change their system without him...is a role player? Oh yeah and he was a DPOY level defender too.

You keep doing this thing where you list off players, but we've nowhere closer to you explaining what is a star and what isn't. The more we do this the more confusing you make it.

If your actually separation here is that you only consider someone a non role player, if they're able to be a first or second option scorer. Then the term role player doesn't have any value in the context of who should be in the hall. How good a player is. Or anything else involving ranking players.

Would your contention be further than many bad teams have a team of nothing but role players? Say the bottom 1/3 of the league is almost completely made up for role players? And if so...like...seriously, what's the point of the term? It's not helping communicate something.

[SA37]

Well yes, they used 3&D because that's not a role player. 3 point specialists are role players. Defensive specialists are role players.

But no, none of those guys are role players. They're all for example better players than some middling scorer like Melo who puts up empty stats when his teams are poor. Those guys all put up great stats anywhere that has impact. Unless you pull one season where a guy missed half the year injured and was playing hurt in half the other games he played.

Back before this weird internet culture came about and you kids started describing anyone not named Jordan as role players, we had a perfect peak type role player in Steve Kerr. Kerr could dribble, defend, and pass just well enough to not cost his team games. He was on the court for one reason and one reason alone. he could shoot.

In all seriousness, I don't know what your issue with defense is. But it's just getting silly. Dray is the difference maker and among the best to ever play. He's certainly a better player than an AI or Melo.

3 & D doesn't make you something other than a role player. It's there because it is a unique skillset. Unique skillset doesn't mean you're not a role player.

Derrick Jones Jr, OG Anunoby, Mikal Bridges, Jaden McDaniels, Alex Caruso, Lu Dort, Aaron Nesmith, Toumani Camara, Dorian Finney Smith, and Herb Jones are all role players.

Bridges and Anunoby -- like Draymond -- straddle the role player/all-star line, but their lack of consistency keeps them from being firmly in the "all-star" category, so perhaps a more accurate description is "borderline all-star", even if this is still an optimistic framing considering Anunoby has 0 all-star appearances in 9 seasons, Bridges has 0 in 7 seasons and Green has been an all-star 4 times in 13 seasons. (And I'll point out Bridges and Anunoby are taking turns with Hart for 3rd fiddle behind KAT and Brunson, aka the actual stars, which is like Green rotating 3rd fiddle with Wiggins and Iguodala behind the stars, aka Curry, Durant, and Thompson.)

3 and D is a unique combination of MULTIPLE skillsets. The s there at the end is what historically would separate role player from quality starter, very good player, or whatever term you'd use.

But now...wait so now a 3 and D player...who isn't even very good on D is a star?

You've literally called multiple guys who were the best or co best players on teams in the finals, role players. Now a very good shooter, who does nothing else is a star. While Green...who you've even admitted is so good, if he left a championship level team would have to completely change their system without him...is a role player? Oh yeah and he was a DPOY level defender too.

You keep doing this thing where you list off players, but we've nowhere closer to you explaining what is a star and what isn't. The more we do this the more confusing you make it.

If your actually separation here is that you only consider someone a non role player, if they're able to be a first or second option scorer. Then the term role player doesn't have any value in the context of who should be in the hall. How good a player is. Or anything else involving ranking players.

I think K Thompson is an all-star level player.

He made 5 straight all-star games before injuring his knee and he is one of the greatest shooters of all-time. 3 & D guys don't get 20+ a game, which Thompson has done for 7 seasons. 3 &D guys don't make the all-NBA team, which Thompson has done twice. Whatever you think of Thompson's defense, he got DPOY votes in 17'-18' and was all NBA D in 18'-19'. None of this is my opinion.

Thompson gave elite, ATG shooting with top-10% scoring, borderline all-NBA defense, and was one of the best off-the-ball players in the game.

None of the 3&D player I mentioned comes anywhere close to that.

Would your contention be further than many bad teams have a team of nothing but role players? Say the bottom 1/3 of the league is almost completely made up for role players? And if so...like...seriously, what's the point of the term? It's not helping communicate something.

I think some role players can play above their ceiling, just like borderline all-stars or even all-stars can play above their ceiling in the right system.

Ben Wallace was a nobody before and after the Pistons, but he was transformed in Detroit, for example.

I think both Green and Thompson were elevated by G State's system. Klay Thompson would be much closer to Dan Majerle than Joe Dumars if it weren't for his team success. Similarly, Green would be much closer to Anthony Mason/Ben Simmons than Dennis Rodman/Joakim Noah were it not for his team success.

[dhsilv2]

3 & D doesn't make you something other than a role player. It's there because it is a unique skillset. Unique skillset doesn't mean you're not a role player.

Derrick Jones Jr, OG Anunoby, Mikal Bridges, Jaden McDaniels, Alex Caruso, Lu Dort, Aaron Nesmith, Toumani Camara, Dorian Finney Smith, and Herb Jones are all role players.

Bridges and Anunoby -- like Draymond -- straddle the role player/all-star line, but their lack of consistency keeps them from being firmly in the "all-star" category, so perhaps a more accurate description is "borderline all-star", even if this is still an optimistic framing considering Anunoby has 0 all-star appearances in 9 seasons, Bridges has 0 in 7 seasons and Green has been an all-star 4 times in 13 seasons. (And I'll point out Bridges and Anunoby are taking turns with Hart for 3rd fiddle behind KAT and Brunson, aka the actual stars, which is like Green rotating 3rd fiddle with Wiggins and Iguodala behind the stars, aka Curry, Durant, and Thompson.)

3 and D is a unique combination of MULTIPLE skillsets. The s there at the end is what historically would separate role player from quality starter, very good player, or whatever term you'd use.

But now...wait so now a 3 and D player...who isn't even very good on D is a star?

You've literally called multiple guys who were the best or co best players on teams in the finals, role players. Now a very good shooter, who does nothing else is a star. While Green...who you've even admitted is so good, if he left a championship level team would have to completely change their system without him...is a role player? Oh yeah and he was a DPOY level defender too.

You keep doing this thing where you list off players, but we've nowhere closer to you explaining what is a star and what isn't. The more we do this the more confusing you make it.

If your actually separation here is that you only consider someone a non role player, if they're able to be a first or second option scorer. Then the term role player doesn't have any value in the context of who should be in the hall. How good a player is. Or anything else involving ranking players.

Would your contention be further than many bad teams have a team of nothing but role players? Say the bottom 1/3 of the league is almost completely made up for role players? And if so...like...seriously, what's the point of the term? It's not helping communicate something.

I think K Thompson is an all-star level player.

He made 5 straight all-star games before injuring his knee and he is one of the greatest shooters of all-time. 3 & D guys don't get 20+ a game, which Thompson has done for 7 seasons. 3 &D guys don't make the all-NBA team, which Thompson has done twice. Whatever you think of Thompson's defense, he got DPOY votes in 17'-18' and was all NBA D in 18'-19'. None of this is my opinion.

Thompson gave elite, ATG shooting with top-10% scoring, borderline all-NBA defense, and was one of the best off-the-ball players in the game.

None of the 3&D player I mentioned comes anywhere close to that.

50 players last year had 20 or more points per game. Is Coby White a star now? RJ Barrett? Norman Powell? Austin Reaves? Zach LaVine?

Klay's defensive talk was just that...talk. He's a strong man defender and sports writers are idiots when it comes to defensive value. Remember mouth breathers like SAS are voting for this stuff. Not actual basketball minds like Ben Taylor. I mean once AI finished top 5 in DPOY and Bowen was often ahead of Duncan. Those votes are just bad.

None the less, Klay is a very good 3 and D guy. And clearly a worse player than Draymond Green.

[SA37]

50 players last year had 20 or more points per game. Is Coby White a star now? RJ Barrett? Norman Powell? Austin Reaves? Zach LaVine?

Zach Lavine is borderline. If he were on a good team, he'd be a perennial all-star like Thompson was for a time. Lavine has averaged ~24-4-4 on 49-39-83, which only a handful of players can claim. He's a top-10, if not top-5 shooter in the NBA. He'd do really well in Denver, for example.

All the other guys you mentioned haven't had the consistency. Powell should have been an all-star last year and, on another team, Reaves would likely be in the convo. Reaves is a really, really good player.

Klay's defensive talk was just that...talk. He's a strong man defender and sports writers are idiots when it comes to defensive value. Remember mouth breathers like SAS are voting for this stuff. Not actual basketball minds like Ben Taylor. I mean once AI finished top 5 in DPOY and Bowen was often ahead of Duncan. Those votes are just bad.

None the less, Klay is a very good 3 and D guy. And clearly a worse player than Draymond Green.

This is just a cope. The same "idiots" that voted for Thompson have voted positively for Green. It's the same standard.

We'll agree to disagree on Thompson v Green.

[dhsilv2]

50 players last year had 20 or more points per game. Is Coby White a star now? RJ Barrett? Norman Powell? Austin Reaves? Zach LaVine?

Zach Lavine is borderline. If he were on a good team, he'd be a perennial all-star like Thompson was for a time. Lavine has averaged ~24-4-4 on 49-39-83, which only a handful of players can claim. He's a top-10, if not top-5 shooter in the NBA. He'd do really well in Denver, for example.

All the other guys you mentioned haven't had the consistency. Powell should have been an all-star last year and, on another team, Reaves would likely be in the convo. Reaves is a really, really good player.

Klay's defensive talk was just that...talk. He's a strong man defender and sports writers are idiots when it comes to defensive value. Remember mouth breathers like SAS are voting for this stuff. Not actual basketball minds like Ben Taylor. I mean once AI finished top 5 in DPOY and Bowen was often ahead of Duncan. Those votes are just bad.

None the less, Klay is a very good 3 and D guy. And clearly a worse player than Draymond Green.

This is just a cope. The same "idiots" that voted for Thompson have voted positively for Green. It's the same standard.

We'll agree to disagree on Thompson v Green.

How on earth would the Nuggets be better with Lavine? He can't play defense. The reason Lavine is never on good teams is because he's a bad player. His defensive problems are greater than the value he adds on offense. Pairing a guy like that with Jokic was be a disaster.

And I don't care about Draymond winning a DPOY. I care that he has the impact of a DPOY, meaning his defensive value is roughly equal to the average season of a KD on offense for a contextual example.

[TheGeneral99]

I wouldn't say underrated.

He's an all-time great defender, very high IQ player, a very good facilitator, but I don't think he's ever an all-star without Steph.

I feel like if Draymond never had Curry, his career would be more akin to a PJ Tucker, Boris Diaw etc. very good players/defenders but more of the ideal role player.

Or maybe I'm wrong.