What versions of Karl Malone are better than 16 Draymond?

[dautjazz]

On offense, there's no comparison between the two and I'm not su sure that Draymond has him beat by that much on defense.

Draymond is handily the better defender, but you're right that offensively Malone is flat out better.

My thought experiment is here: what if I asked you to what degree can you affect the game without netting a single statistic? No points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks. What is there that one can do in a game without netting one of any of those? I mean, for starters, you can box out, you can set screens, you can have a "hockey assist", you can space the floor. Those are some of the offensive things. Defensively, we all know well that most of that is untracked in those stats. In fact, I would argue that the defensive box score is less meaningful than the other things you can do--that is, steals and blocks amount to less than half of the impact that a great defender has when he plays.

Great post, but ultimately isn't this +/- you're talking about here?

Anyway, what gets even more interesting with Draymond is just how this season and his impact compute. I mean, if we're on the side of people who agree that the game can be impacted in a way without necessarily being represented in the box score, then all that really matters is winning and a player's ability to help that happen. The Warriors just cracked the all time record for wins and netted the 6th best SRS of all time. That objectively states that this is one of the NBA's historically great teams. Furthermore, Draymond has had more than enough evidence to state that he is largely to be credited for that dominance, with some even arguing that his impact edges Curry's. And yet, because he doesn't have the PER of Malone's prime, most of that "impact" must really be the product of the system he's in. Malone is independently great because of his ability to stuff the traditional stat sheet, and Draymond does things that are simply enabled by the program he's in, and that cannot be the other way around because... why?

I think PER is a rubbish stat that overrates players who take all the shots. That said, there are statistical box score values that matter, and show Draymond as being good too.

The thing about Karl Malone was that he was never the most talented player in the league, or even in the top 5. But he was often the hardest worker in the league. That's why his regular seasons look so much better than the post season: he brought his A game vs the bottom feeders of the league as well as the best teams, with the obvious result being that he didn't have a 'next level' come playoff time. And he did it for SO LONG. His longevity can't really be a part of any single season evaluation between Draymond and Malone, since Draymond's career is so short by comparison.

I think a better intangibles comparison for Draymond would be Rodman, since he was such an intangibles guy too. It's hard to compare elite passing (for a big) with elite rebounding though.

That said, here's some numbers to compare Draymond with Malone's prime from 89 to 01:

Dramond '16 .190WS/48 5.9BPM 5.6VORP
Malone '89 0.233WS/48 6.1BPM 6.5VORP
Malone '90 0.245WS/48 6.6BPM 6.7VORP
Malone '91 0.225WS/48 5.8BPM 6.5VORP
Malone '92 0.237WS/48 5.3BPM 5.6VORP
Malone '93 0.238WS/48 7.6BPM 7.6VORP
Malone '94 0.193WS/48 6.3BPM 6.9VORP
Malone '95 0.212WS/48 5.8BPM 6.1VORP
Malone '96 0.233WS/48 7.3BPM 7.4VORP
Malone '97 0.268WS/48 8.5BPM 7.9VORP
Malone '98 0.259WS/48 7BPM 6.9VORP
Malone '99 0.252WS/48 6.8BPM 4.1VORP (lockout shortened, prorates as 6.1VORP over 82 game season)
Malone '00 0.249WS/48 6.9BPM 6.6VORP
Malone '01 0.217WS/48 5.9BPM 5.8VORP

So the years Draymond has a case over Malone in '92 (if BPM is your metric of choice). I personally don't think that current Draymond is better than any of the versions of Malone listed in a vacuum,

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted on this forum in my 15 years on this forum. 2 MVPs, one runner up, twice 3rd, three times 4th, and once 5th. He was 11 times All-NBA, I'm sure he was top 5 in the NBA a couple of times there. I would say Maloine was top 3 atleast 5 years, maybe more. Top 5? Somewhere between 10-15 years.

Defensively, Malone was probably little lower, but he All-Defense 1st three years in a row, and 2nd All-Defense once. That's pretty good.

Malone also had a great NBA Finals performance in 1997. He was a in a bad market, they could never get good free agents, and they never made the lottery, so it was hard to improve, yet they never were quite mediocre, they still got past the 1st round almost every season.

[Quotatious]

Malone also had a great NBA Finals performance in 1997.

Excuse me?

Malone really struggled in the '97 finals. He wasn't even the best player on his the Jazz in that series, Stockton played better (not only in the finals, but John outplayed Karl in the entire 1997 playoffs). I re-watched that series not that long ago, and I wasn't particularly impressed with Mailman's performance. To be fair, he had a nasty hand injury that really messed up his shooting touch, so his bad shooting is justifiable to a certain extent, but it's still a fact that he shot the ball poorly (only 44.3% FG and 60.3% FT - for the sake of comparison, he shot 55.0% FG and 75.5% FT in the regular season that year, so it was a pretty huge drop-off - as a result, he averaged only 23.8 ppg, compared to 27.4 in the RS).

With Malone playing on his regular season level, in those finals, Utah likely would've beat Chicago - those games were mostly very close even with Karl struggling in terms of scoring, so with him shooting the ball better, it could've made all the difference for the Jazz (Chicago won their games by 2, 12, 2 and 4 points, so three of those were extremely close - Karl shot 10/22 FG and 3/6 FT in game 1 which they lost by 2, for 23 points, then 7/17 FG and 5/9 FT in game 5, which they also lost by 2, and finally, 7/15 FG and 7/15 FT in game 6, which they lost by 4 - those numbers are all CLEARLY below his capabilities - with Malone shooting above 50% FG and 70% FT in all those games, Utah likely would've won all those games - especially that horrible, 7/15 free throw shooting in game 6, was a really bad struggle, could be called "choking" - for a 75% FT shooter to shoot under 50% on 15 attempts in elimination game of NBA finals, is absolutely inexcusable). The way Karl lost game 1 for Utah in the closing moments, was really awful, too.

Malone played better in the 1998 finals than 1997.

[dautjazz]

Malone also had a great NBA Finals performance in 1997.

Excuse me?

Malone really struggled in the '97 finals. He wasn't even the best player on his the Jazz in that series, Stockton played better (not only in the finals, but John outplayed Karl in the entire 1997 playoffs). I re-watched that series not that long ago, and I wasn't particularly impressed with Mailman's performance. To be fair, he had a nasty hand injury that really messed up his shooting touch, so his bad shooting is justifiable to a certain extent, but it's still a fact that he shot the ball poorly (only 44.3% FG and 60.3% FT - for the sake of comparison, he shot 55.0% FG and 75.5% FT in the regular season that year, so it was a pretty huge drop-off - as a result, he averaged only 23.8 ppg, compared to 27.4 in the RS).

With Malone playing on his regular season level, in those finals, Utah likely would've beat Chicago - those games were mostly very close even with Karl struggling in terms of scoring, so with him shooting the ball better, it could've made all the difference for the Jazz (Chicago won their games by 2, 12, 2 and 4 points, so three of those were extremely close - Karl shot 10/22 FG and 3/6 FT in game 1 which they lost by 2, for 23 points, then 7/17 FG and 5/9 FT in game 5, which they also lost by 2, and finally, 7/15 FG and 7/15 FT in game 6, which they lost by 4 - those numbers are all CLEARLY below his capabilities - with Malone shooting above 50% FG and 70% FT in all those games, Utah likely would've won all those games - especially that horrible, 7/15 free throw shooting in game 6, was a really bad struggle, could be called "choking" - for a 75% FT shooter to shoot under 50% on 15 attempts in elimination game of NBA finals, is absolutely inexcusable). The way Karl lost game 1 for Utah in the closing moments, was really awful, too.

Malone played better in the 1998 finals than 1997.

Sorry I meant 1998. 25/10.5/4 with a steal and block averages, .504 from the field and .789 from the FT line. To be fair, Malone had to deal with Jordan's Bulls in the final, with Rodman covering him, a great defender who could surely get under anybody's skin, so it's probably why he struggled in 1997. Regardless, I think it's BS that Malone struggled against good teams and just thrived vs bad teams in the season. He got past the 1st round 10 times, went to the WCF 6 times, and 3 NBA Finals, those aren't chump teams, and I am sure most of those series could no be won with Malone playing really bad.

[kayess]

I was firmly on the Curry bandwagon until recently, but there were some really good points that some posters made that has me rethinking my view of Green entirely.

I'm curious, which specific points made you change your mind? I'm mostly sure that you'd heard them all before, so ronny/drza or something must've said it in a different way, or presented some new piece of evidence that was the turning point for you.

[therealbig3]

I was firmly on the Curry bandwagon until recently, but there were some really good points that some posters made that has me rethinking my view of Green entirely.

I'm curious, which specific points made you change your mind? I'm mostly sure that you'd heard them all before, so ronny/drza or something must've said it in a different way, or presented some new piece of evidence that was the turning point for you.

ronnymac, drza, and lorak all got me thinking, even though I wasn't convinced yet. I was still contemplating it though. And then my most recent exchange with SSB got me to the point where I had to stop dismissing all the evidence, basically.

That's not to say I'm totally converted though. I still think I would take Curry as the better overall player, but Green becomes more and more impressive the more I think about it.

And I'd be a hypocrite if I totally ignored the massive RAPM advantage that Green has over everyone, since I'm one of the believers in the stat.

[SideshowBob]

What's next - Kawhi Leonard vs Michael Jordan or LeBron James comparison? That would be pretty much equivalent to Malone vs Green comparison (Leonard is better than Green, Jordan/James are better than Malone, but the fundamental problem is the same). Not to sound condescending, but some of those comparisons are getting kinda crazy.

Dunno about Jordan, but 15 & 16 Leonard vs. pre-09 Lebron seasons seems like a solid discussion to be had. I think I'd take 08 over everything but I'd probably side with 16 Leonard over 05/06/07 James. He's that much better defensively than those versions of Lebron.

[Dr Spaceman]

What's next - Kawhi Leonard vs Michael Jordan or LeBron James comparison? That would be pretty much equivalent to Malone vs Green comparison (Leonard is better than Green, Jordan/James are better than Malone, but the fundamental problem is the same). Not to sound condescending, but some of those comparisons are getting kinda crazy.

Dunno about Jordan, but 15 & 16 Leonard vs. pre-09 Lebron seasons seems like a solid discussion to be had. I think I'd take 08 over everything but I'd probably side with 16 Leonard over 05/06/07 James. He's that much better defensively than those versions of Lebron.

How about vs. 11 Bron?

[SideshowBob]

What's next - Kawhi Leonard vs Michael Jordan or LeBron James comparison? That would be pretty much equivalent to Malone vs Green comparison (Leonard is better than Green, Jordan/James are better than Malone, but the fundamental problem is the same). Not to sound condescending, but some of those comparisons are getting kinda crazy.

Dunno about Jordan, but 15 & 16 Leonard vs. pre-09 Lebron seasons seems like a solid discussion to be had. I think I'd take 08 over everything but I'd probably side with 16 Leonard over 05/06/07 James. He's that much better defensively than those versions of Lebron.

How about vs. 11 Bron?

I have 08 higher than 11, so closer than that.

Leonard moves better off the ball towards the basket and spaces the floor better w/3P shooting, but James is slightly better shooting 16-25 feet off the dribble. I think James' only major offensive advantage is half-court & transition playmaking, and I question how effective that would be in a vacuum when team's have already adjusted to the fact that he can't really attack the basket anymore (which they kind of did over the course of the season).

Lebron's pretty strong defensively that year but Leonard's still more consistently engaged off the ball and better suited in single coverage IMO.

Depends on how big you think the offensive gap is IMO (or if you even believe there is any I guess).

I'd hear both ways.

[Emhoward]

This is so fascinating. And frustrating.
#1 scoring option vs. Elite complimentary player. I suppose it depends on that scoring option.

How much do you value the ability to get your own shot? How much do you value versitility and defense?

I obviously have no answers, but I have some statements that I think helps explain my thinking.

1. I think Draymond is a better #2/complimentary player than Malone is a number 1. But Malone is a number one. That means something. If you dont show up the team loses.

2. If I'm a GM and I have an expansion team with no players, I'm taking Malone. But if I already have an number scoring option/playmaker, I'm taking Draymond over Malone. Head spinning.

3. The Bulls without MJ were pretty good, I forget they're record or seeding, but they were good. I don't think GS without Steph would be as good, playoff team no doubt, but not as good, unless... klay does what he did last night, consistently, but if that happened then Klay's the number 1, not Draymond. Man, idk. Help me out.

[drza]

I am not so sure why Spaceman thinks it's a foregone conclusion that GSW offense would get worse with Malone instead of Green. Like Joao Saraiva said, Malone was not even close to a ball-stopper, he was a very good (in the mid/late 90s, actually a borderline elite) passer, excellent off-ball player. He's not a playmaker or a 3-pt shooter like Green, but his edge in terms of scoring is bigger than Green's edge in terms of playmaking, or shooting range.

As good as Stockton was, Curry is MUCH better, and the Jazz had GREAT offenses with prime Malone and Stockton: their best offensive team, +7.7 relORtg, was in '98 (with Stockton missing 18 games, by the way, so it's clear that Malone was responsible for most of that, not Stockton), +6.9 in '97, +6.0 in '95, +5.7 in '96. So, four years in a row, they had absolutely elite offenses. Golden State's +8.1 offense this year, wasn't that much better than the '98 Jazz, at +7.7...

As we saw with Shaq and Kobe or LeBron and Wade in 2011, it's certainly possible to incorporate two 25-30 point scorers on the same team, and be successful, assuming both of them are good playmakers/passers (Curry and Malone absolutely are). Curry and Malone don't seem like they would clash, though, unlike Shaq and Kobe, and they don't have a redundant skill-set, unlike LeBron and Wade. With Curry, as we saw last year, he didn't even need to take 20 shots per game and average 30 ppg, he could still have a huge impact taking just below 17 and averaging just below 24, trading a few points for assists.

Klay is pretty much an ideal third option alongside Curry and Malone. I could see his volume going down, to below 20 ppg, perhaps even closer to Hornacek's territory, but he would still be a formidable offensive weapon just because of his spacing effect and 3-pt threat. It's entirely conceivable that Curry/Malone/Thompson could produce something even better than +8.1 offense, considering that Curry/Green/Thompson (with Green being a much worse offensive player than Malone) produced +8.1 offense, and Malone/Stockton/Hornacek produced +7.7 offense (with '98 Stockton being a much worse offensive player than Curry).

I also disagree with the notion that improving a good team is the ultimate criterion that should separate the best players. To me it's simply about being able to improve any team, in various circumstances, and it's about the margin of improvement. For example - Malone could improve a bad/average team MUCH more than Green, while Green might improve a good/great team slightly more than Malone - that means Malone is a clearly more valuable player in the grand scheme of things.

Challenging so-called "conventional wisdom" is okay, I love to do it myself, but I don't see this particular comparison as really debatable. I'd take about 12 or 13 versions of Malone over current Green, pretty much Malone's entire prime (1988-2000). I would much rather debate '92 Horace Grant vs '16 Draymond.

What's next - Kawhi Leonard vs Michael Jordan or LeBron James comparison? That would be pretty much equivalent to Malone vs Green comparison (Leonard is better than Green, Jordan/James are better than Malone, but the fundamental problem is the same). Not to sound condescending, but some of those comparisons are getting kinda crazy.

Starting with the underlined at the end, I'm not even REMOTELY convinced that Kawhi is better than Green. Frankly, they're both the type of new-age talent that would seemingly grade out similarly, and Green more than holds his own in that comp to me.

As for the rest, I think it comes down to basketball not being a game where you can just add players/stats without looking at the team as a whole. And on offense only (not even factoring defense), I don't see how the Warriors could be as good. People keep downplaying (whether intentionally, or even by omission) what Draymond is doing for the Warriors' offense. He isn't a power forward with good playmaking...he's the point guard. While he shares that role with Curry, if you had to pick one, I'd say that Green is the primary distributor on the team. Which is as it should be, because it allows Curry to spend more time as a primary finisher in addition to his own point guard contributions.

So flash-forward to the proposed Green/Malone swap. As has been pointed out, Malone is a great passer for a big man. But he in no way has the ball-handling or passing ability to play point guard. Which means that Steph, now, has to be the primary ball-handler AND the primary distributor. Which he's solid at, but those aren't his ATG skills. So he's having to take energy away from his main strength...which, by the way, he's better at than anyone ever...and having to spend that energy doing something that he's merely "good" at. Someone pointed out recently that Curry's 3-point shooting percentage is like 10% higher with Green on the floor than when he's not. Curry, if he's got to run the point full time, is still an All NBA player...but he's not special, the way he is now.

The trade-off is that Malone IS a special scorer in the roles that he played in Utah, and his game evolved over time. Late-90s Malone would certainly be expected to contribute majorly to the offense. But I think the Green's ability to play point guard and let Curry be Curry is more valuable to the team's overall output than having Malone as a co-primary scorer with a less special Curry.

[magicmerl]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted on this forum in my 15 years on this forum.

I think that perhaps you didn't understand my post. Any of it.

I was responding to a poster who had said that they weren't persuaded by statistical box score metrics, so I was using other metrics (WS/48, BPM, VORP) to show that Malone was better for his entire extremely lengthy prime.

[Regulio]

I am not sure anymore in what context these players are compared.
Would Malone make GSW better than Green? Why should we care? Those are totally different situations.

You could compare Green to Pippen, but Malone..

What we know for sure is that Green is a great complimentary piece for GSW. That much is obvious.
In vacuum he is clearly worse player than Mailman. Ok, in the system of GSW he is having a better defensive impact. That's it.
In draft no one would pick Green over Mailman.

Green would not lift a bad team to contender status. I mean you have a guy like Lebron, where you can put him on almost any team and you have a NBA finalist/conference finalist. This is the greatest value of a player. Malone is not Lebron, but what he did to those Jazz teams is very very impressive.
If we have a hypothetical situation, like 60W team, average defense, we add a very good defender that really works very well in the system and we suddenly have a 70W team, does that mean the new guy is a superstar and better than a historic offensive anchor? That does not make any sense to me honestly.

Another thing to consider. Malone is widely accepted as top20-25 guy. If Green puts 10 more seasons like that would he crack top20? No way. KG was much better than Green and he is Malone's equal (or slightly better/worse depending on who you ask). So yeah, I don't get this comparison at all.

[Im Your Father]

I also disagree with the notion that improving a good team is the ultimate criterion that should separate the best players. To me it's simply about being able to improve any team, in various circumstances, and it's about the margin of improvement. For example - Malone could improve a bad/average team MUCH more than Green, while Green might improve a good/great team slightly more than Malone - that means Malone is a clearly more valuable player in the grand scheme of things.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter exactly. I am not nearly as high and Green as many on this board seem to be. In my opinion, players on Malone's GOAT level either need to be (a) capable being the best offensive player in an elite offense, or (b) capable of making a defense great by themselves. I don't think Green has either of these qualities.

[eminence]

This is so fascinating. And frustrating.
#1 scoring option vs. Elite complimentary player. I suppose it depends on that scoring option.

How much do you value the ability to get your own shot? How much do you value versitility and defense?

I obviously have no answers, but I have some statements that I think helps explain my thinking.

1. I think Draymond is a better #2/complimentary player than Malone is a number 1. But Malone is a number one. That means something. If you dont show up the team loses.

2. If I'm a GM and I have an expansion team with no players, I'm taking Malone. But if I already have an number scoring option/playmaker, I'm taking Draymond over Malone. Head spinning.

3. The Bulls without MJ were pretty good, I forget they're record or seeding, but they were good. I don't think GS without Steph would be as good, playoff team no doubt, but not as good, unless... klay does what he did last night, consistently, but if that happened then Klay's the number 1, not Draymond. Man, idk. Help me out.

Good post here, pretty much sums up my feelings on it. Draymond is a better #2 than Malone is a #1 or whatever number you care to put him at. But that #1 option that Malone can be gives me reservations...

[Quotatious]

Seems like this comparison is pretty much a perfect example of how each person on this board evaluates players. You have Spaceman, SideshowBob, drza on one side, basically the plus/minus guys, then myself, tsherkin, mischievous, who are more boxscore-oriented. I don't want to say that one side or the other is right or wrong, but it's a pretty fascinating discussion just in terms of methodology.

[lorak]

^
Drymond is unique from box score point of view too. No one in history was as boxscore-versatile as he is. So I think methedology isn't a problem here. Rather how some people are still fixated on scoring and it's difficult for them to accept, that someone who doesn't score much or isn't classic defensive anchor can have that kind of impact in modern game. He is simply something new, never seen before and that's human nature that most people struggle with understanding what is really happening in such situations. It occurs in science too, as even brillant minds struggle with accepting new theories - what was described by Kuhn in his great book.

[ronnymac2]

Yeah I don't see this as Box Score vs. Plus/Minus either. I see this as internal resistance people have towards Green's combined package of talents. I only say that because despite being a Green fan, I experienced it myself.

I don't think Green's pacakage of two-way talents is unique. I've made the comparisons to Dave Debusschere before, and I like when people bring up Boris Diaw, Anthony Mason, and Lamar Odom as well. Draymond is mostly certainly an updated, superior model of player, plus, in this age of optimization, his skillset is optimized/can be optimized, mainly because of the 3-point shot. Who better to play with than the GOAT 3-point shooting backcourt?

That said, I think that model of player has great impact/ability wherever he lands, and I don't see why we should put limits on a player's goodness/impact based on his style or where his strengths lie. We're talking levels here. We haven't seen a player with the goodness/ability/impact we often see in our classic models of superstar in the "Debusschere Model of Player" — until now in Draymond Green. I think that's where the resistance is.

[SideshowBob]

Seems like this comparison is pretty much a perfect example of how each person on this board evaluates players. You have Spaceman, SideshowBob, drza on one side, basically the plus/minus guys, then myself, tsherkin, mischievous, who are more boxscore-oriented. I don't want to say that one side or the other is right or wrong, but it's a pretty fascinating discussion just in terms of methodology.

I won't speak for anyone else, but I don't consider myself to be a plus/minus guy at all. Game-watching is above all for me, everything else, +/-, lineup data, regression data, box-score data, etc. it's all merely complementary.

+/- data means nothing to me beyond its face value. Regression has the correct idea, but effectively speaking, we will always have the problem of both multicollinearity and role/fit/value vs. goodness (Draymond Green might be around +7 on the Warriors in the current season, but that by no means mean that he's a +7 across any random team and that's what I'm more concerned with).

Box-score same thing, I don't like making much of it beyond face value - it's just too limited in its scope for me to put heavy weight in simply looking at the total line and saying that collectively based on PTS/TRB/AST/TO/STL/BLK/%s and any "advanced derivative from those is going to paint anywhere near a complete picture of a player's worth. There's just far too much going on on the court for that to be remotely true.

EDIT: As for Green, while I'm pretty vocally supportive, I'm pretty sure I'm more in the middle here. There's a few of seasons from the 80s/early 90s where I feel Malone's offense was still relatively underdeveloped and defense is definitely down enough in the post-lockout years. I think I'd take any season from the middle of his career over current Green.

[HeartBreakKid]

^
Drymond is unique from box score point of view too. No one in history was as boxscore-versatile as he is. So I think methedology isn't a problem here. Rather how some people are still fixated on scoring and it's difficult for them to accept, that someone who doesn't score much or isn't classic defensive anchor can have that kind of impact in modern game. He is simply something new, never seen before and that's human nature that most people struggle with understanding what is really happening in such situations. It occurs in science too, as even brillant minds struggle with accepting new theories - what was described by Kuhn in his great book.

He also plays with a stacked team and has the best player arguably of all time on that team, there's plenty of room for speculation on how good he is. A lot of the things Green does I highly doubt he would be able to do nearly as well as most teams, I mean the guy isn't even that great of a 3 point shooter when there is no one near him, his shooting ability is vastly overrated.

I also don't think he would rack up the assist that he does on the vast majority of teams in the NBA. I mean this guy is playing with the GOAT shooting backcourt, a pair of excellent slashers with one of them being a 40% 3 point shooter, an in and out 6'6 PG, and another stretch 4 in Mo Speights. The guy has so many offensive weapons and no one is focused on stopping him, and often times he is not even guarded...


The argument is not that we cannot understand Green, it is apparent that he is versatile and impactful in many different way. But to what extent? Is he only "impactful" on a team like GSW, because if so - that really is not saying much. Does he have top 25 talent? I have my doubts, and I am a guy who thinks Bill Russell is the goat, so I hardly have problems accepting non volume scorers. I just haven't seen enough evidence for me to feel comfortable yet about placing Green above someone like Karl Malone or saying he's better than Durant, Westbrook and LBJ - which many people here are now saying.

[RSCD3_]

^
Drymond is unique from box score point of view too. No one in history was as boxscore-versatile as he is. So I think methedology isn't a problem here. Rather how some people are still fixated on scoring and it's difficult for them to accept, that someone who doesn't score much or isn't classic defensive anchor can have that kind of impact in modern game. He is simply something new, never seen before and that's human nature that most people struggle with understanding what is really happening in such situations. It occurs in science too, as even brillant minds struggle with accepting new theories - what was described by Kuhn in his great book.

He also plays with a stacked team and has the best player arguably of all time on that team, there's plenty of room for speculation on how good he is. A lot of the things Green does I highly doubt he would be able to do nearly as well as most teams, I mean the guy isn't even that great of a 3 point shooter when there is no one near him, his shooting ability is vastly overrated.

I also don't think he would rack up the assist that he does on the vast majority of teams in the NBA. I mean this guy is playing with the GOAT shooting backcourt, a pair of excellent slashers with one of them being a 40% 3 point shooter, an in and out 6'6 PG, and another stretch 4 in Mo Speights. The guy has so many offensive weapons and no one is focused on stopping him, and often times he is not even guarded...


The argument is not that we cannot understand Green, it is apparent that he is versatile and impactful in many different way. But to what extent? Is he only "impactful" on a team like GSW, because if so - that really is not saying much. Does he have top 25 talent? I have my doubts, and I am a guy who thinks Bill Russell is the goat, so I hardly have problems accepting non volume scorers. I just haven't seen enough evidence for me to feel comfortable yet about placing Green above someone like Karl Malone or saying he's better than Durant, Westbrook and LBJ - which many people here are now saying.

His driving game against 4 is legitimate, if he can blow past the first line of defense ans pass to a three point shooter in the corner on one team I dont know why he cant on th other teams. He looked pretty good even without curry as a passer and if he is such a bad scorer than why arent defenders letting hik make the shots at the rim?

His offense is dynamic because he's got the speed of a three and can attack the rim or pop out for three as a roll man in pick and rolls, a very exclusive skill even if the benchmarks in both at the same time are only pretty good. Even replace curry with conley and he'd still be dangerous in the pick and roll.

I dont know if there has ever been a player remarkedly better at him at driving/rolling/popping/passing off the pico and roll that has used it this much as him, his success is based not on tremendous skill but enough skills that he is good at, and passing ( the one he is elite at for 4's and very good for 3's ) and he manages to keep opponents off balance while he hinself knows how to attack it most of the time.

Too much space he'll take a jumper in rhythm, too close and he'll barrel past with his dense frame and skilled dribble, and then if he gets to that stage he can either take a relatively open shot or pass if defense collapse.

His offensive game is far greater than the sum of the parts and I think people are only looking at the pieces themselves not how he's using them, we see offensive players with a ton of skill in different areas who utilize them incorrectly and thus underperrfom on O, so why is it so hard to think that there can be the opposite, a incredibly cerebral player like larry bird was, who uses mismatches and all of his weapons to continually find the path of least resistance to easier buckets.