Draymond Green is underrated

[FrodoBaggins]

Good thread. He's in that bracket of unorthodox players whose scope of ability and therefore impact & value are understated due to their unconventional skillset—Draymond Green, Joakim Noah, Andrei Kirilenko, Jason Kidd, Bo Outlaw, etc.

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. - Wikipedia

We've all heard the terms "floor-raiser" and "ceiling-raiser" thrown around online to describe NBA players and their impact on the game. A floor-raiser helps to elevate a lesser group of talent by taking on a larger burden, role, and responsibility. A ceiling-raiser co-co-exists with a talented cohort, improving them by finding ways to fit in without being an overbearing sap on usage.

There are certain skill sets described as corresponding more to one or the other. FLOOR-RAISING SKILLS: On-ball scoring, off-the-dribble playmaking, shot creation; CEILING-RAISING SKILLS: defense, rebounding, off-ball scoring, and secondary/connective-tissue passing. Players, based on these abilities, are thus categorized as more of a ceiling-raiser or floor-raiser.

I won't lie, it's a pretty sound premise in general. But I think people can misinterpret the concepts and create false narratives. About what a winning basketball team looks like. What it can look like. It's often repeated on this forum that you can't build a team around *this guy* or *that guy*. Or that *this guy* can't be the best player or *number-one option* on a championship team.

I've never liked these sort of discussions because I think they're a bit of a false dichotomy and miss the nuance and intricacies inherent in basketball - a team sport.

Which leads me to Draymond Green: the quintessential "ceiling-raiser." We all know about his game and how important he was and still is to Golden State. There's no need for me to rehash his absolutely wild impact metrics that give his legacy the official stamp of approval. Especially online and here. We all know.

But there's one issue I want to discuss, and that's his potential as a "floor-raiser." Most people would point to 2019-20 as proof that he can't elevate subpar talent in a role with more primacy and responsibility. But I'm not sure this is fair. That team wasn't built around Draymond Green. And I don't think it's fair to judge him for that.

My opinion is that I think Dray could absolutely elevate a weak supporting cast. One that fits his talents. I would point to guys like Jason Kidd and 2004 Andrei Kirilenko as examples of players who raised the floor of porous squads despite lacking "flooring-raising" skill sets.

Utah was predicted to be one of the worst teams in the NBA after losing Stockton and Malone. They won 42 games in a tough Western Conference despite featuring a cast of players including Greg Ostertag, Raja Bell, Carlos Arroyo, Jarron Collins, Raul Lopez, DeShawn Stevenson, Sasha Pavlovic, and Matt Harpring.

Those were the top-eight players in minutes played that supported Andrei, who was an All-Star that season. Everything from the game footage, raw play-by-play data and lineup statistics, RAPM numbers, and box score-derived advanced metrics point to an elite floor-raising impact.

But because of the false narratives and/or dichotomy of "floor-raising" and "ceiling-raising," many would look at Kirilenko's box score and see a role player. And attribute the success of the team more to everyone as a collective effort. But Tracy McGrady puts up big scoring numbers and leads a similarly weak Orlando team to 42 wins in a weaker conference the year before and he's seen as a floor-raiser. Ditto with LeBron winning 42 games in 2005 while putting up 27/7/7.

You can kind of see what I'm getting at. I just don't believe in the rigidity of some of these concepts. A bad team being elevated by a superstar can look any number of ways. A superstar (or high-level impact player) can look any number of ways. Those conventional volume-scoring floor-raisers tend to dominate the ball and often limit the potential and impact of their teammates. Like Oladipo, Sabonis, and Grant in OKC with Westbrook.

And, like Jason Kidd and Andrei Kirilenko, I think Draymond Green could elevate subpar supporting casts in classic floor-raising fashion. I remember peak Dray went 6-3 without Steph in 2016. Six of those games came in the playoffs. All games were against playoff teams: Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Portland. He averaged the following:

- 9 games
- 16.6 points, 11.0 rebounds, 8.7 assists, 1.7 steals, 1.6 blocks, 2.4 turnovers
- 52.02% TS, 37.2% 3PT, 70.5% FT

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Joakim Noah is another unconventional player who would be perceived as a ceiling-raising player yet showed some floor-raising quality. Chicago improved dramatically in 2013-14 when he was given the opportunity to become more of a primary offensive creator as a playmaking hub.

A little background for those who don't remember peak 2014 Joakim Noah:

- Started the season 12-18
- The offense was guard-centric
- Noah became more of a focal point on offense/ran through him
- Finished the season 36-15 (58 win-pace)
- Team offensive rating jumped +5 points
- Averaged 13.6 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 6.5 apg, 1.3 spg, 1.7 bpg on 2.7 topg (54.05% TS)
- Won DPOY, 1st team All-NBA, 1st team All-Defense, All-Star
- Finished 4th in the MVP voting

I will agree though that peak Noah deserves his respect for what he accomplished that season on 2013-14. That season's Bulls team was traaaaaaash. Look at this roster: https://www.basketball-reference.com.../CHI/2014.html

I would nearly equate it to Draymond having to play with no Curry and no Klay, since Deng and Rose were out. It started terribly, with the Bulls sitting at 12-18 30 games into the season. Thibs was basically still trying to run his Rose-centric offense with replacement parts, and it sucked.

At that point, Thibs basically said "This is Noah's team", and changed the whole scheme to run through him.

Noah's Bulls from there forward went 36-16, their offensive rating improved by almost 5 points, their defense stayed league-leading, and Noah averaged 13.5/12/7 the rest of the way, with 8 games of 10+ assists. Top of the league in most advanced stats, rightfully won the DPOY, first team all-NBA, all-star, and earned himself those MVP votes (4th place).

So if you wanted to say "I think Noah 2013-14 season was better individually than any of Dray's seasons", I wouldn't argue with that. Noah proved he was a floor-raiser and competitor even with his stars out, something Dray did not do when given the chance in 2019-20 in a similar situation.

However, this does also ignore the coaching and front office, with Thibs/Bulls pushing to win and Kerr/Warriors embracing the tank.

And no matter what, I'm pretty sure winning ANOTHER championship with everyone healthy this past year kind of absolves the **** 19-20 season. Dray has nothing to prove to anyone at this point.

After starting 15 different lineups in the first 33 games of the season, they've only started four in the 45 games since. The starting five of Kirk Hinrich, Jimmy Butler, Mike Dunleavy, Carlos Boozer and Noah have now started 21 consecutive games. That's the longest run of the same starting five in the Thibodeau era.

Health is a big part, but it also has a lot to do with Noah's expanding skills. Thibodeau redesigned the offense to go through Noah from the elbow, and his remarkable passing ability for a big man was put on full display.

Noah has six 11-assist games since Feb 6, a 30-game stretch. All other NBA centers combined have only 27 such games in the last 30 years.

And, in the more important aspect of winning, the Bulls have turned around in the re-imagined offense. Since the Luol Deng trade, they are 32-14, the best record in the Eastern Conference. The only team in the NBA with more wins in that span is the San Antonio Spurs.

Noah also took over the transition game, which is better explained by this fantastic compilation, courtesy of Sports Illustrated’s Rob Mahoney, than by words alone.

The Bulls have had the best defense in the NBA over that span. And while their offense is still only the 25th most efficient, it’s notching 5.5 more points per 100 possessions since being run through Noah. And, both the offense and the defense are close to two points per 100 possessions better when Noah’s on the court.

Noah has established himself as something no one thought he could be—a player who can carry a contender. The winning speaks for itself. As a result, he’s not only emerged as a top-five candidate for MVP, he’s made “point center” a term in the process.

Here’s perhaps the most remarkable summation of Noah’s achievement this year: He has 956 points, 398 assists and 849 rebounds. In the history of the NBA, the only other centers to do that are Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Russell. That’s what we in basketball circles refer to as "elite company."

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[Jax_23]

Glad to see Draymond get some love. Whenever I hear some dumbass on Twitter call him a triple single or whatever or try to marginalize him I know they don't know basketball. I remember his very first game in Summer League. He was passionate in a SUMMER LEAGUE game, pushing Harrison Barnes and Ezeli to be better, iirc. Always been a winner. A few things that stick out to me about Draymond is 1) how unique of a player he is 2) his passion to win / heart 3) his bball iq.

First, he's a 6'6 dude with a 7'1 wingspan who is a Point-Forward and can guard 1 thru 5 at DPOY levels. That's historically unique. He can handle the ball, run the offense, rebound, drop dimes, shoot the 3 sometimes, and is the heart of the team and a leader. His skillset combined with bball IQ make him pretty unique as a player, and I don't think it's talked about enough. There's not a lot of players in NBA history like that. Scottie Pippen maybe, Boris Diaw maybe - but he's more of a poor man's Draymond.

Draymond's the type of player you'd hoop with at the local park or gym and he'd play the game for free and he'd be just as passionate and hate to lose in street ball too. His bball IQ on both sides of the ball, not of just the x's and o's, but as someone who can read the game emotionally - he might be top 5 all-time in that. Think Larry Bird, MJ, Kobe, etc. as far as reading what the game needs at a certain moment (not comparing him to them but saying his ability to read the entire game on multiple levels is elite). Which is why I don't think that fight with Jordan Poole was accidental . It was a reaction to a shove but it was calculated and "for a good cause" to save the team from a diva ballhog and future bad contract (JP). Which is why he may "pick fights" in a game the same way a coach gets a T to light a fire under the team. Draymond sees the "story" and "flow" of the game better than many historically. Just someone who loves basketball. These are the players you want. Not a coincidence he's part of the cultural change on this team and got 4 rings with this franchise.

This is such a crazy narrative for a player that cost his team a championship by getting himself suspended in a finals game for kicking a guy in the balls.

Cool cherry pick. How you like the narrative of him being pivotal reason for 4 championships, one of the best dynasties ever, and a first-ballot Hall of Famer?

[Jax_23]

Because most of Green's accomplishments came in a 3 year span. Not sure why you want to omit the other 9-10 years of his career where he wasn't an all-star or all-NBA player. You already know all the other arguments against him, most notably Golden St not paying him star money and constantly needing to find stars because Green could not fill that role.

Yes, most of the guys who make all-defensive teams are role players because they generally don't produce anything close to an all-NBA/all star level output on offense. Stockton was a perennial all-star and a fixture on the all-NBA team for a decade. Stockton's scoring was on par with anything Jason Kidd or Steve Nash produced. He wasn't a big-time scorer, but he also didn't fail to get to 10ppg or have pathetic shooting numbers over multiple seasons like Green.

I mean, who do you think makes all-star games year in and year out? Is it not obvious to you that those are more or less the top-24 players in the league? If Green is SO good, why is he constantly left off? The "idiot" voters just don't know like you do? Why has Golden St never given him star money? Did the "idiots" sneak into Golden State's FO?

We need to address three things here.

1. The words we've using as you are explaining them don't actually meaning anything. Meaning "player" and "role" aren't to be taken as meaning anything. That "role player" is a term unrelated to the two words. We get here because by your take, a player like Green can have the largest responsibility in terms of decision making and even activity on the average play, but he has a "role" vs him being someone who's a decision maker or a building block. And with Dray I think we all should and can see he was the biggest and most responsible person for their warrior's actual decisions. he was the primary distributor in the half court and the defensive play caller and anchor.

2. Despite some confusing stuff like saying a scrub like Lavine is potentially a star. Your statement that being a 4x all star isn't enough to consider you a top 24 player...ultimately means that there are perhaps less than 100 if not less than 50 players in NBA history who were anything but "role players". Given we're about 4,800 players deep, maybe nearing 5k. You're basically coming up with a term that used as you're using it doesn't have any meaning at all. Dray is clearly a cornerstone with which the warrior's dynasty lives or dies by. If someone that we cannot even try to argue against being a cornerstone of a dynasty is a "role player". Again...just stop using the term. it doesn't mean anything.

3. You're throwing out so much misleading crap. Dray was the 35th highest player after he signed his deal in 2015. Warriors were lucky his deal didn't come up after 2016 or he'd have signed a mega deal. Dray then clearly took a discount that started in 2021 but he'd also started having health issues. That doesn't mean he wasn't a superstar at his peak. And he also wasn't paid widely off from an allstar either.

Bottom line, it's still unclear what you think is a clear definition between a role player and whatever else you see players as. Dray is a clear second best player on a title team. A cornerstone in a dynasty. Just like Ben Wallace was for the Pistons for that matter. You can't possibly argue that the guy who's 14th all time in playoff assists is a role player while propping up guards who were mostly passers as stars. And then say lavine is debatable when he's a crap player who just scores a lot of empty points.

Addressing your points:

1. A role player, as I have been using it, means the player is not an elite, all-NBA level player. This player is not part of the primary players that shoulder the burden of carrying teams, mainly offensively. Again, stars are at least perennial all-stars, if not perennial fixtures on all-NBA teams. There are only 15 all-NBA spots, and because of certain requirements/limitations (mainly to do with positions) it isn't necessarily fully representative of the top-15 players. An easy example is years where Embiid has made the 2nd team all-NBA when he probably should have been on the 1st team. Still, the all-NBA team -- and those who get votes -- gives us a very good idea of who those players might be.

Another indicator is pay. As I've said before, some guys get paid star money when they don't deserve it, but it's a good proxy for who is valued and at what level. That Green has never been paid star money is a strong indicator he's not the star you think he is.

I looked at the list of top players for Hoopshype, ESPN, and The Ringer, I think it was, for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 season. Hoopshype had Green at 73 & 101, ESPN had him at 55 & 66, and the Ringer had him at 50 for 2024-2025 (I couldn't find their list from the previous year)

The bottom line here is there is almost nothing supporting your claims on Green being a star.

2. I didn't say Lavine was a star; I said he had great numbers that very few players in the league could match, specifically in terms of his elite shooting and his elite scoring ability. I think he's really a 3rd wheel (like Wiggins, as an example) that could masquerade as a 2nd wheel on the right team, kind of like Jamal Murray.

3. Peak is not representative of a player if it is the minority of his career. In Green's case, it's 3 years out of 13. He's only been an all-star 4 times out of 13 years and an all-NBA player 2 years out of 13. What that all shows is that he lacks the consistency that real stars show.

This is a nice sum up of a player based purely on numbers. Draymond-haters and casuals always try to marginalize a player exclusively through numbers, when his real impact can't be quantified by numbers. I couldn't care less what media outlets say about Draymond. Most of these dudes writing these lists are 80 lb skinny-armed analytic nerds stuck in a room with a computer who never played the sport IRL. Is he a future Hall of Famer, yes or no? Not many "trash role players" in the HOF.

[Jax_23]

So all the publications have it wrong, the press (and others) who vote for all-star and all-NBA selections all have it wrong; but you, you've got it right. That's your argument?

And no, D Green was never a top-15 player in the NBA, imo. That said, there are some publications that had him ~13-17th or so in their rankings around his peak. I disagree with that, but that's where several publications (SI, WaPo) ranked him.

Stop worrying about biased publications and start worrying about what are the top players a team wanted to have on their team to win a ring. This is the only that matters in the end. Iguodala is another one of those players on the Warriors where his impact was greater than his stats. So many players put up empty stats and sh** their pants in crunch time, but you'd label them as "stars" because of a nerd putting together a list on a website and because they scored more points. Basketball is a game where someone can dominate in multiple ways, not just scoring. Draymond has been historically DOMINANT on defense (up there with Pippen, Rodman, GP1, Mutombo, etc.), elite as playmaking, and elite at things you don't even see happening on the court because you're too busy tracking how many points someone inefficiently scored.

[WolfAddict]

So all the publications have it wrong, the press (and others) who vote for all-star and all-NBA selections all have it wrong; but you, you've got it right. That's your argument?

And no, D Green was never a top-15 player in the NBA, imo. That said, there are some publications that had him ~13-17th or so in their rankings around his peak. I disagree with that, but that's where several publications (SI, WaPo) ranked him.

Stop worrying about biased publications and start worrying about what are the top players a team wanted to have on their team to win a ring. This is the only that matters in the end. Iguodala is another one of those players on the Warriors where his impact was greater than his stats. So many players put up empty stats and sh** their pants in crunch time, but you'd label them as "stars" because of a nerd putting together a list on a website and because they scored more points. Basketball is a game where someone can dominate in multiple ways, not just scoring. Draymond has been historically DOMINANT on defense (up there with Pippen, Rodman, GP1, Mutombo, etc.), elite as playmaking, and elite at things you don't even see happening on the court because you're too busy tracking how many points someone inefficiently scored.

Calm down Dray...

[Kiss of Death]

Overrated.

If the officials were allowed to treat him like everyone else, he probably wouldn’t have made it past his rookie contract.

[SA37]

Spoiler:

We need to address three things here.

1. The words we've using as you are explaining them don't actually meaning anything. Meaning "player" and "role" aren't to be taken as meaning anything. That "role player" is a term unrelated to the two words. We get here because by your take, a player like Green can have the largest responsibility in terms of decision making and even activity on the average play, but he has a "role" vs him being someone who's a decision maker or a building block. And with Dray I think we all should and can see he was the biggest and most responsible person for their warrior's actual decisions. he was the primary distributor in the half court and the defensive play caller and anchor.

2. Despite some confusing stuff like saying a scrub like Lavine is potentially a star. Your statement that being a 4x all star isn't enough to consider you a top 24 player...ultimately means that there are perhaps less than 100 if not less than 50 players in NBA history who were anything but "role players". Given we're about 4,800 players deep, maybe nearing 5k. You're basically coming up with a term that used as you're using it doesn't have any meaning at all. Dray is clearly a cornerstone with which the warrior's dynasty lives or dies by. If someone that we cannot even try to argue against being a cornerstone of a dynasty is a "role player". Again...just stop using the term. it doesn't mean anything.

3. You're throwing out so much misleading crap. Dray was the 35th highest player after he signed his deal in 2015. Warriors were lucky his deal didn't come up after 2016 or he'd have signed a mega deal. Dray then clearly took a discount that started in 2021 but he'd also started having health issues. That doesn't mean he wasn't a superstar at his peak. And he also wasn't paid widely off from an allstar either.

Bottom line, it's still unclear what you think is a clear definition between a role player and whatever else you see players as. Dray is a clear second best player on a title team. A cornerstone in a dynasty. Just like Ben Wallace was for the Pistons for that matter. You can't possibly argue that the guy who's 14th all time in playoff assists is a role player while propping up guards who were mostly passers as stars. And then say lavine is debatable when he's a crap player who just scores a lot of empty points.

Addressing your points:

1. A role player, as I have been using it, means the player is not an elite, all-NBA level player. This player is not part of the primary players that shoulder the burden of carrying teams, mainly offensively. Again, stars are at least perennial all-stars, if not perennial fixtures on all-NBA teams. There are only 15 all-NBA spots, and because of certain requirements/limitations (mainly to do with positions) it isn't necessarily fully representative of the top-15 players. An easy example is years where Embiid has made the 2nd team all-NBA when he probably should have been on the 1st team. Still, the all-NBA team -- and those who get votes -- gives us a very good idea of who those players might be.

Another indicator is pay. As I've said before, some guys get paid star money when they don't deserve it, but it's a good proxy for who is valued and at what level. That Green has never been paid star money is a strong indicator he's not the star you think he is.

I looked at the list of top players for Hoopshype, ESPN, and The Ringer, I think it was, for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 season. Hoopshype had Green at 73 & 101, ESPN had him at 55 & 66, and the Ringer had him at 50 for 2024-2025 (I couldn't find their list from the previous year)

The bottom line here is there is almost nothing supporting your claims on Green being a star.

2. I didn't say Lavine was a star; I said he had great numbers that very few players in the league could match, specifically in terms of his elite shooting and his elite scoring ability. I think he's really a 3rd wheel (like Wiggins, as an example) that could masquerade as a 2nd wheel on the right team, kind of like Jamal Murray.

3. Peak is not representative of a player if it is the minority of his career. In Green's case, it's 3 years out of 13. He's only been an all-star 4 times out of 13 years and an all-NBA player 2 years out of 13. What that all shows is that he lacks the consistency that real stars show.

This is a nice sum up of a player based purely on numbers. Draymond-haters and casuals always try to marginalize a player exclusively through numbers, when his real impact can't be quantified by numbers. I couldn't care less what media outlets say about Draymond. Most of these dudes writing these lists are 80 lb skinny-armed analytic nerds stuck in a room with a computer who never played the sport IRL. Is he a future Hall of Famer, yes or no? Not many "trash role players" in the HOF.

I guess you're building on dhsilv2's argument that the voters that haven't picked Draymond as an all-star or all-NBA -- " Draymond haters and casuals" -- just don't get it. Some of the arguments are just so weak: 'the voters don't know', 'counting stats don't mean anything', 'advanced stats are irrefutable'...etc.

His lack of standout stats is just one issue. Minimal all-star and all-NBA selections, no star money, Golden St constantly acquiring players above Green in the pecking order, the rankings by people who follow basketball at all the publication...etc. The signs are overwhelmingly clear.

Green will be in the HOF, no question about it. I never called him a "trash role player"; he's clearly a role player. He had a peak above role player, but it was for 2-3 seasons at most. Again, most guys who make all-defensive teams are role players.

[SA37]

So all the publications have it wrong, the press (and others) who vote for all-star and all-NBA selections all have it wrong; but you, you've got it right. That's your argument?

And no, D Green was never a top-15 player in the NBA, imo. That said, there are some publications that had him ~13-17th or so in their rankings around his peak. I disagree with that, but that's where several publications (SI, WaPo) ranked him.

Stop worrying about biased publications and start worrying about what are the top players a team wanted to have on their team to win a ring. This is the only that matters in the end. Iguodala is another one of those players on the Warriors where his impact was greater than his stats. So many players put up empty stats and sh** their pants in crunch time, but you'd label them as "stars" because of a nerd putting together a list on a website and because they scored more points. Basketball is a game where someone can dominate in multiple ways, not just scoring. Draymond has been historically DOMINANT on defense (up there with Pippen, Rodman, GP1, Mutombo, etc.), elite as playmaking, and elite at things you don't even see happening on the court because you're too busy tracking how many points someone inefficiently scored.

I'm more concerned about how he has consistently been left off all-star and all-NBA teams than "biased" publications (the same ones that have ranked him in the #10-#20 range in a handful of seasons). Golden St has never given Green star money either. In fact, Golden St has gone out of their way to acquire stars to makeup for Green's lack of star power.

[Jax_23]

So all the publications have it wrong, the press (and others) who vote for all-star and all-NBA selections all have it wrong; but you, you've got it right. That's your argument?

And no, D Green was never a top-15 player in the NBA, imo. That said, there are some publications that had him ~13-17th or so in their rankings around his peak. I disagree with that, but that's where several publications (SI, WaPo) ranked him.

Stop worrying about biased publications and start worrying about what are the top players a team wanted to have on their team to win a ring. This is the only that matters in the end. Iguodala is another one of those players on the Warriors where his impact was greater than his stats. So many players put up empty stats and sh** their pants in crunch time, but you'd label them as "stars" because of a nerd putting together a list on a website and because they scored more points. Basketball is a game where someone can dominate in multiple ways, not just scoring. Draymond has been historically DOMINANT on defense (up there with Pippen, Rodman, GP1, Mutombo, etc.), elite as playmaking, and elite at things you don't even see happening on the court because you're too busy tracking how many points someone inefficiently scored.

Calm down Dray...

Awww are your feelings hurt?

[Jax_23]

So all the publications have it wrong, the press (and others) who vote for all-star and all-NBA selections all have it wrong; but you, you've got it right. That's your argument?

And no, D Green was never a top-15 player in the NBA, imo. That said, there are some publications that had him ~13-17th or so in their rankings around his peak. I disagree with that, but that's where several publications (SI, WaPo) ranked him.

Stop worrying about biased publications and start worrying about what are the top players a team wanted to have on their team to win a ring. This is the only that matters in the end. Iguodala is another one of those players on the Warriors where his impact was greater than his stats. So many players put up empty stats and sh** their pants in crunch time, but you'd label them as "stars" because of a nerd putting together a list on a website and because they scored more points. Basketball is a game where someone can dominate in multiple ways, not just scoring. Draymond has been historically DOMINANT on defense (up there with Pippen, Rodman, GP1, Mutombo, etc.), elite as playmaking, and elite at things you don't even see happening on the court because you're too busy tracking how many points someone inefficiently scored.

I'm more concerned about how he has consistently been left off all-star and all-NBA teams than "biased" publications (the same ones that have ranked him in the #10-#20 range in a handful of seasons). Golden St has never given Green star money either. In fact, Golden St has gone out of their way to acquire stars to makeup for Green's lack of star power.

The all star game is a popularity contest. Dennis Rodman made only 2 in his career and yet he's a HOFer...

Predictably, like all analytic nerds do (a.k.a casuals who can't make a 5 foot shot IRL to save their life), you keep talking about numbers and stats because you're intentionally trying to minimize what he does ON THE ACTUAL COURT and the winning he's done with GS - a pivotal piece of 4 rings. Find me an easily replaceable "role player" who is a cornerstone of 4 rings. The results speak for itself. He's won. That's the ultimate stat. Call him whatever tf you want, at the end of the day he's been an elite player in this league who is a future HOFer.

Intentionally calling someone a "role player" is a way to try to gaslight and minimize how good they are and put them in the same category as true "role players" or specialists like Brandin Podziemski, Tony Allen, Bobby Portis, Kyle Korver, etc. Draymond is not under that umbrella "because he didn't make a ton of all-nba teams." There's a bigger spectrum. Is he "Tier 1" like the all-time greats? Course not. But that doesn't make him some overly common sh*tty 1-dimensional role player. If anything, he's anything but. He's versatile af and arguably a top 5 defensive player in NBA history. You're fixated on a word, instead of fixated on what he actually brings / brought to his team while he's on the court -- which is a ton. Curry would not have 4 rings without Draymond and Klay and Draymond wouldn't have 4 rings without Curry and Klay. Which is why it's called a team game.

[Jax_23]

Also it's so funny seeing people get so triggered vs Draymond lmaooo "He's sooo meeeeaaan waaa." (He's from Detroit area not Canada...sorry eh). Yeah, and? You ever been on a real court? You need those type of players, you need enforcers, you need junkyard dogs. It's ok in hockey but not in basketball? Every generation has had them - Dennis Rodman, Charles Oakley, Bill Laimbeer, Rick Mahorn, Anthony Mason, Ron Artest, Patrick Beverly, etc. Ya'll only want golden boys 24/7? It doesn't take away from the type of success he's had. If anything, the emotion / passion he plays with has helped his career.

[dhsilv2]

Spoiler:

Addressing your points:

1. A role player, as I have been using it, means the player is not an elite, all-NBA level player. This player is not part of the primary players that shoulder the burden of carrying teams, mainly offensively. Again, stars are at least perennial all-stars, if not perennial fixtures on all-NBA teams. There are only 15 all-NBA spots, and because of certain requirements/limitations (mainly to do with positions) it isn't necessarily fully representative of the top-15 players. An easy example is years where Embiid has made the 2nd team all-NBA when he probably should have been on the 1st team. Still, the all-NBA team -- and those who get votes -- gives us a very good idea of who those players might be.

Another indicator is pay. As I've said before, some guys get paid star money when they don't deserve it, but it's a good proxy for who is valued and at what level. That Green has never been paid star money is a strong indicator he's not the star you think he is.

I looked at the list of top players for Hoopshype, ESPN, and The Ringer, I think it was, for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 season. Hoopshype had Green at 73 & 101, ESPN had him at 55 & 66, and the Ringer had him at 50 for 2024-2025 (I couldn't find their list from the previous year)

The bottom line here is there is almost nothing supporting your claims on Green being a star.

2. I didn't say Lavine was a star; I said he had great numbers that very few players in the league could match, specifically in terms of his elite shooting and his elite scoring ability. I think he's really a 3rd wheel (like Wiggins, as an example) that could masquerade as a 2nd wheel on the right team, kind of like Jamal Murray.

3. Peak is not representative of a player if it is the minority of his career. In Green's case, it's 3 years out of 13. He's only been an all-star 4 times out of 13 years and an all-NBA player 2 years out of 13. What that all shows is that he lacks the consistency that real stars show.

This is a nice sum up of a player based purely on numbers. Draymond-haters and casuals always try to marginalize a player exclusively through numbers, when his real impact can't be quantified by numbers. I couldn't care less what media outlets say about Draymond. Most of these dudes writing these lists are 80 lb skinny-armed analytic nerds stuck in a room with a computer who never played the sport IRL. Is he a future Hall of Famer, yes or no? Not many "trash role players" in the HOF.

I guess you're building on dhsilv2's argument that the voters that haven't picked Draymond as an all-star or all-NBA -- " Draymond haters and casuals" -- just don't get it. Some of the arguments are just so weak: 'the voters don't know', 'counting stats don't mean anything', 'advanced stats are irrefutable'...etc.

His lack of standout stats is just one issue. Minimal all-star and all-NBA selections, no star money, Golden St constantly acquiring players above Green in the pecking order, the rankings by people who follow basketball at all the publication...etc. The signs are overwhelmingly clear.

Green will be in the HOF, no question about it. I never called him a "trash role player"; he's clearly a role player. He had a peak above role player, but it was for 2-3 seasons at most. Again, most guys who make all-defensive teams are role players.

Son...stop repeating statements we already corrected!

We already covered stats. Dray is a star by his stats. This is covered by your OWN criteria of top 5's and top 10's in per game measures. By all basic box score metrics like VORP. By actual advanced stats like RAPM. The only stat you've been able to bring up here is PPG. That's it.

You've already even accepted some of his all media awards put him in great company with the top 75 selections and we've address the bias the skews that with more teams. So stop repeating a measure we've corrected.

We already addressed and corrected you on the money.

We already covered that you're using dishonest examples. The actual media ranked Dray as a top 10 player. You're using predictive articles which is not just dishonest but absurd given we've already corrected why this is wrong.

It's one thing to have a good faith discussion where you just feel the terms of role player and star should have some qualities that you like or not. But to be this dishonest about why Dray is an all time great is getting pathetic. Saying the guy who is 14th all time in playoff assists doesn't have stand out stats? A top 5 guy in assists since he became a starter? A league leader in steal. A guy well up there in rebounds.

[SA37]

Stop worrying about biased publications and start worrying about what are the top players a team wanted to have on their team to win a ring. This is the only that matters in the end. Iguodala is another one of those players on the Warriors where his impact was greater than his stats. So many players put up empty stats and sh** their pants in crunch time, but you'd label them as "stars" because of a nerd putting together a list on a website and because they scored more points. Basketball is a game where someone can dominate in multiple ways, not just scoring. Draymond has been historically DOMINANT on defense (up there with Pippen, Rodman, GP1, Mutombo, etc.), elite as playmaking, and elite at things you don't even see happening on the court because you're too busy tracking how many points someone inefficiently scored.

I'm more concerned about how he has consistently been left off all-star and all-NBA teams than "biased" publications (the same ones that have ranked him in the #10-#20 range in a handful of seasons). Golden St has never given Green star money either. In fact, Golden St has gone out of their way to acquire stars to makeup for Green's lack of star power.

The all star game is a popularity contest. Dennis Rodman made only 2 in his career and yet he's a HOFer...

Predictably, like all analytic nerds do (a.k.a casuals who can't make a 5 foot shot IRL to save their life), you keep talking about numbers and stats because you're intentionally trying to minimize what he does ON THE ACTUAL COURT and the winning he's done with GS - a pivotal piece of 4 rings. Find me an easily replaceable "role player" who is a cornerstone of 4 rings. The results speak for itself. He's won. That's the ultimate stat. Call him whatever tf you want, at the end of the day he's been an elite player in this league who is a future HOFer.

Intentionally calling someone a "role player" is a way to try to gaslight and minimize how good they are and put them in the same category as true "role players" or specialists like Brandin Podziemski, Tony Allen, Bobby Portis, Kyle Korver, etc. Draymond is not under that umbrella "because he didn't make a ton of all-nba teams." There's a bigger spectrum. Is he "Tier 1" like the all-time greats? Course not. But that doesn't make him some overly common sh*tty 1-dimensional role player. If anything, he's anything but. He's versatile af and arguably a top 5 defensive player in NBA history. You're fixated on a word, instead of fixated on what he actually brings / brought to his team while he's on the court -- which is a ton. Curry would not have 4 rings without Draymond and Klay and Draymond wouldn't have 4 rings without Curry and Klay. Which is why it's called a team game.

You're fighting arguments I haven't made.

I haven't said Green wasn't an important player for GS or that he was easily replaceable. I have actually said that Green was a "deluxe" role player who was hard to replace because he combines a unique set of skills for a role player, kind of like how 3 & D players are unique. And, yes, he's been on winning teams, but that's my point: He's been on winning teams with better players. My opinion is he's never been one of the two best players on a contender. It's either been Curry/Thompson or Durant/Curry/Thompson. Unsurprisingly, after Durant left and as Klay's game dropped off, so did the Warriors' team success.

I already made a long post listing who I thought were stars and then the subsequent tiers of players. At his peak, Green was a great 3rd wheel, like Rodman, Horace Grant, or Al Horford. But again, the issue is his peak lasted about 3 years.

Green is unlikely to make another all-star or all-NBA team in his final 2-3 seasons. On that assumption, he'll not have been an all-star or all-NBA player ~75% of his career.

[SA37]

This is a nice sum up of a player based purely on numbers. Draymond-haters and casuals always try to marginalize a player exclusively through numbers, when his real impact can't be quantified by numbers. I couldn't care less what media outlets say about Draymond. Most of these dudes writing these lists are 80 lb skinny-armed analytic nerds stuck in a room with a computer who never played the sport IRL. Is he a future Hall of Famer, yes or no? Not many "trash role players" in the HOF.

I guess you're building on dhsilv2's argument that the voters that haven't picked Draymond as an all-star or all-NBA -- " Draymond haters and casuals" -- just don't get it. Some of the arguments are just so weak: 'the voters don't know', 'counting stats don't mean anything', 'advanced stats are irrefutable'...etc.

His lack of standout stats is just one issue. Minimal all-star and all-NBA selections, no star money, Golden St constantly acquiring players above Green in the pecking order, the rankings by people who follow basketball at all the publication...etc. The signs are overwhelmingly clear.

Green will be in the HOF, no question about it. I never called him a "trash role player"; he's clearly a role player. He had a peak above role player, but it was for 2-3 seasons at most. Again, most guys who make all-defensive teams are role players.

Son...stop repeating statements we already corrected!

We already covered stats. Dray is a star by his stats. This is covered by your OWN criteria of top 5's and top 10's in per game measures. By all basic box score metrics like VORP. By actual advanced stats like RAPM. The only stat you've been able to bring up here is PPG. That's it.

You've already even accepted some of his all media awards put him in great company with the top 75 selections and we've address the bias the skews that with more teams. So stop repeating a measure we've corrected.

We already addressed and corrected you on the money.

We already covered that you're using dishonest examples. The actual media ranked Dray as a top 10 player. You're using predictive articles which is not just dishonest but absurd given we've already corrected why this is wrong.

It's one thing to have a good faith discussion where you just feel the terms of role player and star should have some qualities that you like or not. But to be this dishonest about why Dray is an all time great is getting pathetic. Saying the guy who is 14th all time in playoff assists doesn't have stand out stats? A top 5 guy in assists since he became a starter? A league leader in steal. A guy well up there in rebounds.

To the bolded: yeah, 9-6-5 is exactly what you see stars averaging. What a joke.

There have been no "corrections", just you stubbornly continuing to make claims that are fairly easily disprovable.

I have only seen 1 publication with Green as a top-10 player (SI, forget the year). Otherwise, you will need to prove what you are saying.

Which years has Green been top-5 in assists? Edit: Ok, I went and looked it up. As far as total assists go, there are 4 seasons he's made the top 10 (7th 15'-16 ; 9th '16-17 ; 8th '17-18' ; 6th 20'-21').

Here is the ranking on a per game basis:

14-15: 45th
15'-16': 7th
16'-17': 9th
17'-18': 7th
18'-19': 13th
19'-20': 20th
20-21: 4th
21-22: 13th
22-23: 13th
23-24: 23rd
24-25: 25th

So 1 top-5, 4 top-10s. All that to say, even if we only look at the seasons Green was a starter (11 seasons), h'es only been top-10 in 4 of them. Well below half of them.

Totally dominant.

Let's check your claim Green was "A guy well up there in rebounds" even though he's never even managed 10rpg in any season:

14-15: 23rd
15'-16': 13th
16'-17': 26th
17'-18': 25th
18'-19': 39th
19'-20': 53rd
20-21: 32nd
21-22: 36th
22-23: 37th
23-24: 33rd
24-25: 44th

So never in the top-10, only 1x in the top-20.

[dhsilv2]

I guess you're building on dhsilv2's argument that the voters that haven't picked Draymond as an all-star or all-NBA -- " Draymond haters and casuals" -- just don't get it. Some of the arguments are just so weak: 'the voters don't know', 'counting stats don't mean anything', 'advanced stats are irrefutable'...etc.

His lack of standout stats is just one issue. Minimal all-star and all-NBA selections, no star money, Golden St constantly acquiring players above Green in the pecking order, the rankings by people who follow basketball at all the publication...etc. The signs are overwhelmingly clear.

Green will be in the HOF, no question about it. I never called him a "trash role player"; he's clearly a role player. He had a peak above role player, but it was for 2-3 seasons at most. Again, most guys who make all-defensive teams are role players.

Son...stop repeating statements we already corrected!

We already covered stats. Dray is a star by his stats. This is covered by your OWN criteria of top 5's and top 10's in per game measures. By all basic box score metrics like VORP. By actual advanced stats like RAPM. The only stat you've been able to bring up here is PPG. That's it.

You've already even accepted some of his all media awards put him in great company with the top 75 selections and we've address the bias the skews that with more teams. So stop repeating a measure we've corrected.

We already addressed and corrected you on the money.

We already covered that you're using dishonest examples. The actual media ranked Dray as a top 10 player. You're using predictive articles which is not just dishonest but absurd given we've already corrected why this is wrong.

It's one thing to have a good faith discussion where you just feel the terms of role player and star should have some qualities that you like or not. But to be this dishonest about why Dray is an all time great is getting pathetic. Saying the guy who is 14th all time in playoff assists doesn't have stand out stats? A top 5 guy in assists since he became a starter? A league leader in steal. A guy well up there in rebounds.

To the bolded: yeah, 9-6-5 is exactly what you see stars averaging. What a joke.

There have been no "corrections", just you stubbornly continuing to make claims that are fairly easily disprovable.

I have only seen 1 publication with Green as a top-10 player (SI, forget the year). Otherwise, you will need to prove what you are saying.

Which years has Green been top-5 in assists? Edit: Ok, I went and looked it up. As far as total assists go, there are 4 seasons he's made the top 10 (7th 15'-16 ; 9th '16-17 ; 8th '17-18' ; 6th 20'-21').

Here is the ranking on a per game basis:

14-15: 45th
15'-16': 7th
16'-17': 9th
17'-18': 7th
18'-19': 13th
19'-20': 20th
20-21: 4th
21-22: 13th
22-23: 13th
23-24: 23rd
24-25: 25th

So 1 top-5, 4 top-10s. All that to say, even if we only look at the seasons Green was a starter (11 seasons), h'es only been top-10 in 4 of them. Well below half of them.

Totally dominant.

Let's check your claim Green was "A guy well up there in rebounds" even though he's never even managed 10rpg in any season:

14-15: 23rd
15'-16': 13th
16'-17': 26th
17'-18': 25th
18'-19': 39th
19'-20': 53rd
20-21: 32nd
21-22: 36th
22-23: 37th
23-24: 33rd
24-25: 44th

So never in the top-10, only 1x in the top-20.

The fact you had to lookup to know Green was 4x to 10 in assists THIS deep into this discussion is CRAZY! It just shows you've been bad faith the whole time. More over 4 times as we've shown with the top 75 team which you used earlier as a call to authority is enough to be on that team.

Let it not forget Dray's stats go up in the playoffs and he's played more than 2 full seasons of playoff ball while most players never come near that.

[SA37]

Spoiler:

Son...stop repeating statements we already corrected!

We already covered stats. Dray is a star by his stats. This is covered by your OWN criteria of top 5's and top 10's in per game measures. By all basic box score metrics like VORP. By actual advanced stats like RAPM. The only stat you've been able to bring up here is PPG. That's it.

You've already even accepted some of his all media awards put him in great company with the top 75 selections and we've address the bias the skews that with more teams. So stop repeating a measure we've corrected.

We already addressed and corrected you on the money.

We already covered that you're using dishonest examples. The actual media ranked Dray as a top 10 player. You're using predictive articles which is not just dishonest but absurd given we've already corrected why this is wrong.

It's one thing to have a good faith discussion where you just feel the terms of role player and star should have some qualities that you like or not. But to be this dishonest about why Dray is an all time great is getting pathetic. Saying the guy who is 14th all time in playoff assists doesn't have stand out stats? A top 5 guy in assists since he became a starter? A league leader in steal. A guy well up there in rebounds.

To the bolded: yeah, 9-6-5 is exactly what you see stars averaging. What a joke.

There have been no "corrections", just you stubbornly continuing to make claims that are fairly easily disprovable.

I have only seen 1 publication with Green as a top-10 player (SI, forget the year). Otherwise, you will need to prove what you are saying.

Which years has Green been top-5 in assists? Edit: Ok, I went and looked it up. As far as total assists go, there are 4 seasons he's made the top 10 (7th 15'-16 ; 9th '16-17 ; 8th '17-18' ; 6th 20'-21').

Here is the ranking on a per game basis:

14-15: 45th
15'-16': 7th
16'-17': 9th
17'-18': 7th
18'-19': 13th
19'-20': 20th
20-21: 4th
21-22: 13th
22-23: 13th
23-24: 23rd
24-25: 25th

So 1 top-5, 4 top-10s. All that to say, even if we only look at the seasons Green was a starter (11 seasons), h'es only been top-10 in 4 of them. Well below half of them.

Totally dominant.

Let's check your claim Green was "A guy well up there in rebounds" even though he's never even managed 10rpg in any season:

14-15: 23rd
15'-16': 13th
16'-17': 26th
17'-18': 25th
18'-19': 39th
19'-20': 53rd
20-21: 32nd
21-22: 36th
22-23: 37th
23-24: 33rd
24-25: 44th

So never in the top-10, only 1x in the top-20.

The fact you had to lookup to know Green was 4x to 10 in assists THIS deep into this discussion is CRAZY! It just shows you've been bad faith the whole time. More over 4 times as we've shown with the top 75 team which you used earlier as a call to authority is enough to be on that team.

Let it not forget Dray's stats go up in the playoffs and he's played more than 2 full seasons of playoff ball while most players never come near that.

No, it shows 1) he just hasn't consistently been near the top and 2) that when he was it was almost a decade ago

Off the top of my head, I'd tell you that in the last ~decade, the top assist guys have largely been Trae Young, Luka Doncic, Jokic, Westbrook, C Paul, LeBron, Rondo, Rubio, Haliburton, Harden, Lillard, John Wall....etc guys like that.

Even if I'd kept it to big men, I'd have said the top 5 have been Jokic, Sabonis, Ben Simmons, Giannis, and maybe Lamar Odom?

In any case, Green's rough average is ~15th in assists and ~30th in rebounds.

Let's see steals now:

14-15: 21st
15'-16': 27th
16'-17': 1st
17'-18': 28th
18'-19': 21st
19'-20': 17th
20-21: 4th
21-22: 19th
22-23: 56th
23-24: 49th
24-25: 16th

So again, 2 years in the top-5, 5 years in the top-20; So again, not even half the years (11 years total) has he been in the top-20. Rough average there of ~25th in steals.

[dhsilv2]

Spoiler:

To the bolded: yeah, 9-6-5 is exactly what you see stars averaging. What a joke.

There have been no "corrections", just you stubbornly continuing to make claims that are fairly easily disprovable.

I have only seen 1 publication with Green as a top-10 player (SI, forget the year). Otherwise, you will need to prove what you are saying.

Which years has Green been top-5 in assists? Edit: Ok, I went and looked it up. As far as total assists go, there are 4 seasons he's made the top 10 (7th 15'-16 ; 9th '16-17 ; 8th '17-18' ; 6th 20'-21').

Here is the ranking on a per game basis:

14-15: 45th
15'-16': 7th
16'-17': 9th
17'-18': 7th
18'-19': 13th
19'-20': 20th
20-21: 4th
21-22: 13th
22-23: 13th
23-24: 23rd
24-25: 25th

So 1 top-5, 4 top-10s. All that to say, even if we only look at the seasons Green was a starter (11 seasons), h'es only been top-10 in 4 of them. Well below half of them.

Totally dominant.

Let's check your claim Green was "A guy well up there in rebounds" even though he's never even managed 10rpg in any season:

14-15: 23rd
15'-16': 13th
16'-17': 26th
17'-18': 25th
18'-19': 39th
19'-20': 53rd
20-21: 32nd
21-22: 36th
22-23: 37th
23-24: 33rd
24-25: 44th

So never in the top-10, only 1x in the top-20.

The fact you had to lookup to know Green was 4x to 10 in assists THIS deep into this discussion is CRAZY! It just shows you've been bad faith the whole time. More over 4 times as we've shown with the top 75 team which you used earlier as a call to authority is enough to be on that team.

Let it not forget Dray's stats go up in the playoffs and he's played more than 2 full seasons of playoff ball while most players never come near that.

No, it shows 1) he just hasn't consistently been near the top and 2) that when he was it was almost a decade ago

Off the top of my head, I'd tell you that in the last ~decade, the top assist guys have largely been Trae Young, Luka Doncic, Jokic, Westbrook, C Paul, LeBron, Rondo, Rubio, Haliburton, Harden, Lillard, John Wall....etc guys like that.

Even if I'd kept it to big men, I'd have said the top 5 have been Jokic, Sabonis, Ben Simmons, Giannis, and maybe Lamar Odom?

In any case, Green's rough average is ~15th in assists and ~30th in rebounds.

Let's see steals now:

14-15: 21st
15'-16': 27th
16'-17': 1st
17'-18': 28th
18'-19': 21st
19'-20': 17th
20-21: 4th
21-22: 19th
22-23: 56th
23-24: 49th
24-25: 16th

So again, 2 years in the top-5, 5 years in the top-20; So again, not even half the years (11 years total) has he been in the top-20. Rough average there of ~25th in steals.

Should we be expecting a guy who's 35 to still be at the top? Obviously this discussion is about his career as a whole and his best years. Jordan was terrible when he was on the Wizards. Doesn't mean we change how we talk about him either.

Edit

Remember you're the guy who's called Klay a star, who's finished 10th once in PPG and in no other major category.

[floppymoose]

Also, steals is not the way to judge his impact. It would be like judging Curry strictly by assist totals.

[dhsilv2]

Also, steals is not the way to judge his impact. It would be like judging Curry strictly by assist totals.

Oh of course not. But he's trying to make a "Grey Ink" type argument when judging a player but implying Draymon Green doesn't have any.

[SA37]

The fact you had to lookup to know Green was 4x to 10 in assists THIS deep into this discussion is CRAZY! It just shows you've been bad faith the whole time. More over 4 times as we've shown with the top 75 team which you used earlier as a call to authority is enough to be on that team.

Let it not forget Dray's stats go up in the playoffs and he's played more than 2 full seasons of playoff ball while most players never come near that.

No, it shows 1) he just hasn't consistently been near the top and 2) that when he was it was almost a decade ago

Off the top of my head, I'd tell you that in the last ~decade, the top assist guys have largely been Trae Young, Luka Doncic, Jokic, Westbrook, C Paul, LeBron, Rondo, Rubio, Haliburton, Harden, Lillard, John Wall....etc guys like that.

Even if I'd kept it to big men, I'd have said the top 5 have been Jokic, Sabonis, Ben Simmons, Giannis, and maybe Lamar Odom?

In any case, Green's rough average is ~15th in assists and ~30th in rebounds.

Let's see steals now:

14-15: 21st
15'-16': 27th
16'-17': 1st
17'-18': 28th
18'-19': 21st
19'-20': 17th
20-21: 4th
21-22: 19th
22-23: 56th
23-24: 49th
24-25: 16th

So again, 2 years in the top-5, 5 years in the top-20; So again, not even half the years (11 years total) has he been in the top-20. Rough average there of ~25th in steals.

Should we be expecting a guy who's 35 to still be at the top? Obviously this discussion is about his career as a whole and his best years. Jordan was terrible when he was on the Wizards. Doesn't mean we change how we talk about him either.

Edit

Remember you're the guy who's called Klay a star, who's finished 10th once in PPG and in no other major category.

I literally have omitted Green's 1st 2 years and looked at his career from age 24-36 or so. My point this entire time has been that Green has WAY MORE years as an undecorated role player than the 3-year peak you center on. 3 years is not a career. 3 years is an aberration when we're talking a 13-year career that will likely be 15-16 years once he actually retires. And we've seen stars be very good at Green's age, like Steph, Durant, LeBron, Chris Paul, Westbrook...etc.

As for Thompson, there are levels to stars. And as I explained in excruciating detail, he's Dan Majerle or Peja if he never plays for the Warriors. Part of the reason Thompson is held in such high consideration is because of his team success. Yes, he'd still be one of the greatest shooters of all time and he'd have a been a good (not great) scorer in the NBA regardless of where he played. But you'd basically have Zach Lavine with better defense. And we already know what you think of Lavine.

We can't say the same thing for Green necessarily. His output has been pretty uneventful over the majority of his career. Even at his 3-year peak, his numbers are pedestrian relative to stars (these are rough estimates): 12ppg 7apg 8 rpg 1.7 steals 1.4 bpg 44 fg% 33 3pt%.

As a point of comparison, I'll use Bam Adebayo and JJJ, who I consider tier 3 stars.

If we take Bam's last 6 years (his peak so far), we'd roughly get: 19ppg 9rpg 4apg .8 bpg 1.2 spg 53 fg% (he only just started shooting a relevant number of 3s last year, so this stat is useless for now).

If we take Jackson's last 4 seasons, we'd roughly get: 19ppg 6rpg 1.5apg 2bpg 1spg 45 fg% 33 3pt %

So you have a very comparable defenders to Green, but you get so much more production on the offensive end. And accordingly, both Adebayo and Jackson have gotten big-time star money

At his peak, Green compares favorably to Jackson and Bam, but I'd argue most teams would take JJJ or Bam over Green. Now, if Green had played at this level for 7-8 seasons, we'd be having a completely different conversation. But he hasn't. The majority of his career he's played below this peak level, and that is why for me he is 1 tier below the tier 3 stars aka deluxe role player.