#10 Best Defensive Shooting Guard of all time - The ten best defenders in each position project

[trex_8063]

It's a virtual toss-up for me, but I'm going to tentatively cast in with Don Chaney as my vote.

He's one of a relative few left who looks good to me on both his man defense and his help defense. I'm presently watching a game from '78; he's just a couple weeks shy of his 32nd birthday, and a bit banged up that year, and he still looks pretty good.

He can be seen pressuring the ball up the court as well as busting plays on the help defense, hustles back on the transition D, too. He moves his feet well, but even where he's beat a half-step by smaller/faster guards, he appears comfortable [and effective] just tracking them from the side, using his tremendous length (has got really long arms on his already substantial 6'5" frame). We see guys like Kawhi Leonard play like this today: half-step beat, but not out of the play, frequently coming away with blocks, tips or deflections from the side.
That size also gave him a fair bit of versatility.

Estimated Impact (which I'd used to include him in the prior "Value Above Replacement" studies I'd presented) rates him well defensively, and I suspect [because it's largely box-based] it's actually underrating him, as it will poorly factor in all the plays he disrupts [by sliding over and cutting off a penetrator (not his man), the deflections he causes, or by his ball-pressure].

He's got a VERY nice WOWYR score, which if one assumes that impact is largely coming on the defensive end, it reflects quite positively for him for this project.

He has impressive help D numbers in the counting stats, too: from '74-'80 avg 2.3 steals and 1.0 blocks per 100 possessions. That's remarkably similar to career Dwyane Wade, who some call the greatest help defending SG ever.

And he's one of only a few notable candidates who appeared pretty good defensively from start to finish. Some guys had some very good defensive years, but also some mediocre (or even poor) defensive years [usually when their athleticism was waning toward the end]. But by most accounts, Chaney was solid defensively from the beginning to the end.

He just seems like a worthwhile inclusion. Though I'll be honest that I'd be happy with any one of Sefolosha, Jimmy Butler, or Doug Christie, too.

[Gibson22]

So, Chaney beats thabo 4-3.

We'll have to start a new thread to list the candidates for the next spot

[LAL1947]

No Wade . This is absouletly why I couldn't give myself to these votings .

When Sloan sitted at 7, people criticize Green's spot? Green is extremely well-rounded defensive player to give everything to you, he's SG version of Draymond. Btw, I really don't get how Sloan is up there :/ .

Six all-defensive teams (four first-team), great steal totals and impact stats from the years we have, stands out on film, 2 all-star selections that he got basically just on his defensive merits...

The real crime here is that an SG with 12x All Defensive selections (9x 1st Team) has not even make it into the Top 10... and he earned a lot of those selections over Wade.

Those 12x All Defensive selections is more than or as many as the full seasons that some in this Top 10 played. Jerry Sloan and Alvin Robertson played 11 and 12 seasons respectively. And Tony Allen did not play 12 full seasons even though he was in the league for longer. In his first seasons, he rarely crossed 1,000 total minutes played.

And Eddie Jones was a good defender... but a better defender than Kobe? How?! They both played for the Lakers and I would never say that, lol.

We really need a :finger_wag: emotion to use for moments like this.

[homecourtloss]

No Wade . This is absouletly why I couldn't give myself to these votings .

When Sloan sitted at 7, people criticize Green's spot? Green is extremely well-rounded defensive player to give everything to you, he's SG version of Draymond. Btw, I really don't get how Sloan is up there :/ .

Six all-defensive teams (four first-team), great steal totals and impact stats from the years we have, stands out on film, 2 all-star selections that he got basically just on his defensive merits...

The real crime here is that an SG with 12x All Defensive selections (9x 1st Team) has not even make it into the Top 10... and he earned a lot of those selections over Wade.

Those 12x All Defensive selections is more than or as many as the full seasons that some in this Top 10 played. Jerry Sloan and Alvin Robertson played 11 and 12 seasons respectively. And Tony Allen did not play 12 full seasons even though he was in the league for longer. In his first seasons, he rarely crossed 1,000 total minutes played.

And Eddie Jones was a good defender... but a better defender than Kobe? How?! They both played for the Lakers and I would never say that, lol.

We really need a :finger_wag: emotion to use for moments like this.

There are defensive metrics and on court data available to help us evaluate a player’s defense a lot better than reputational all defensive team voting.

[Stan]

No Wade . This is absouletly why I couldn't give myself to these votings .

When Sloan sitted at 7, people criticize Green's spot? Green is extremely well-rounded defensive player to give everything to you, he's SG version of Draymond. Btw, I really don't get how Sloan is up there :/ .

Six all-defensive teams (four first-team), great steal totals and impact stats from the years we have, stands out on film, 2 all-star selections that he got basically just on his defensive merits...

The real crime here is that an SG with 12x All Defensive selections (9x 1st Team) has not even make it into the Top 10... and he earned a lot of those selections over Wade.

Those 12x All Defensive selections is more than or as many as the full seasons that some in this Top 10 played. Jerry Sloan and Alvin Robertson played 11 and 12 seasons respectively. And Tony Allen did not play 12 full seasons even though he was in the league for longer. In his first seasons, he rarely crossed 1,000 total minutes played.

And Eddie Jones was a good defender... but a better defender than Kobe? How?! They both played for the Lakers and I would never say that, lol.

We really need a :finger_wag: emotion to use for moments like this.

While it’s shocking a Lakers fan would hold this opinion, it’s been common knowledge for years that nearly all of those All-Defensive nods were undeserved. I honestly think they’re the most fraudulent accolades in league history, the guy was making the All-Defensive First Team every year from 2006-2011 Absolute joke.

[LAL1947]

While it’s shocking a Lakers fan would hold this opinion, it’s been common knowledge for years that nearly all of those All-Defensive nods were undeserved. I honestly think they’re the most fraudulent accolades in league history, the guy was making the All-Defensive First Team every year from 2006-2011 Absolute joke.

I think it's an absolute joke that you would take Phil's words and twist them in this manner.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Six all-defensive teams (four first-team), great steal totals and impact stats from the years we have, stands out on film, 2 all-star selections that he got basically just on his defensive merits...

The real crime here is that an SG with 12x All Defensive selections (9x 1st Team) has not even make it into the Top 10... and he earned a lot of those selections over Wade.

Those 12x All Defensive selections is more than or as many as the full seasons that some in this Top 10 played. Jerry Sloan and Alvin Robertson played 11 and 12 seasons respectively. And Tony Allen did not play 12 full seasons even though he was in the league for longer. In his first seasons, he rarely crossed 1,000 total minutes played.

And Eddie Jones was a good defender... but a better defender than Kobe? How?! They both played for the Lakers and I would never say that, lol.

We really need a :finger_wag: emotion to use for moments like this.

There are defensive metrics and on court data available to help us evaluate a player’s defense a lot better than reputational all defensive team voting.

+/- metrics have always been dubious, and not related to impact but instead roster lineups.

[mdonnelly1989]

This is Wade. His athletic disruption is on point. He and Lebron were staples for some of the best defensive teams of all time.

[falcolombardi]

The real crime here is that an SG with 12x All Defensive selections (9x 1st Team) has not even make it into the Top 10... and he earned a lot of those selections over Wade.

Those 12x All Defensive selections is more than or as many as the full seasons that some in this Top 10 played. Jerry Sloan and Alvin Robertson played 11 and 12 seasons respectively. And Tony Allen did not play 12 full seasons even though he was in the league for longer. In his first seasons, he rarely crossed 1,000 total minutes played.

And Eddie Jones was a good defender... but a better defender than Kobe? How?! They both played for the Lakers and I would never say that, lol.

We really need a :finger_wag: emotion to use for moments like this.

There are defensive metrics and on court data available to help us evaluate a player’s defense a lot better than reputational all defensive team voting.

+/- metrics have always been dubious, and not related to impact but instead roster lineups.

Every stat is affected by lineups tho, even the basic boxscore ones like rebounds or points per game

No player plays in a vacuum

[An Unbiased Fan]

There are defensive metrics and on court data available to help us evaluate a player’s defense a lot better than reputational all defensive team voting.

+/- metrics have always been dubious, and not related to impact but instead roster lineups.

Every stat is affected by lineups tho, even the basic boxscore ones like rebounds or points per game

No player plays in a vacuum

That's not my point though. +/- stats were created to analyze lineups. it was their original purpose and people said these aren't for player evaluation back in the day. But then some theory-crafted with them and promoted their own metrics, and off we went. All those numbers are still based on the same 75 year old box scores, the only difference is who is on the court for the 8-12 mins the star player is off. Now integrating Synergy type stats, and expanding the actual data set could be interesting down the road.

[capfan33]

+/- metrics have always been dubious, and not related to impact but instead roster lineups.

Every stat is affected by lineups tho, even the basic boxscore ones like rebounds or points per game

No player plays in a vacuum

That's not my point though. +/- stats were created to analyze lineups. it was their original purpose and people said these aren't for player evaluation back in the day. But then some theory-crafted with them and promoted their own metrics, and off we went. All those numbers are still based on the same 75 year old box scores, the only difference is who is on the court for the 8-12 mins the star player is off. Now integrating Synergy type stats, and expanding the actual data set could be interesting down the road.

Isn't that what luck and lineup adjustmented metrics were created for, to adjust for any impact that lineups have on individual impact? Like it or not, luck adjusted +- stats are pretty universally accepted by NBA front offices as being the best all in one metric we have for evaluating player impact, even if they're not perfect.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Every stat is affected by lineups tho, even the basic boxscore ones like rebounds or points per game

No player plays in a vacuum

That's not my point though. +/- stats were created to analyze lineups. it was their original purpose and people said these aren't for player evaluation back in the day. But then some theory-crafted with them and promoted their own metrics, and off we went. All those numbers are still based on the same 75 year old box scores, the only difference is who is on the court for the 8-12 mins the star player is off. Now integrating Synergy type stats, and expanding the actual data set could be interesting down the road.

Isn't that what luck and lineup adjustmented metrics were created for, to adjust for any impact that lineups have on individual impact? Like it or not, luck adjusted +- stats are pretty universally accepted by NBA front offices as being the best all in one metric we have for evaluating player impact, even if they're not perfect.

You can't adjust for it because the metric is literally based on lineup data. There isn't anyway to take that out of the equation. Over the years there has been endless modifications to try and get desired results, but in any other data analyst field, we would call that manipulation.

[capfan33]

That's not my point though. +/- stats were created to analyze lineups. it was their original purpose and people said these aren't for player evaluation back in the day. But then some theory-crafted with them and promoted their own metrics, and off we went. All those numbers are still based on the same 75 year old box scores, the only difference is who is on the court for the 8-12 mins the star player is off. Now integrating Synergy type stats, and expanding the actual data set could be interesting down the road.

Isn't that what luck and lineup adjustmented metrics were created for, to adjust for any impact that lineups have on individual impact? Like it or not, luck adjusted +- stats are pretty universally accepted by NBA front offices as being the best all in one metric we have for evaluating player impact, even if they're not perfect.

You can't adjust for it because the metric is literally based on lineup data. There isn't anyway to take that out of the equation. Over the years there has been endless modifications to try and get desired results, but in any other data analyst field, we would call that manipulation.

It's not about taking lineup data out of the equation, it's about trying to isolate what portion of lineup data changes are attributable to one player.

I'm not going to pretend that basketball stats are anywhere near as accurate as baseball advanced metrics, but they are the best all-in-one metric publicly available, as stated by Daryl Morey and surveys done of front offices who know a lot more about this than you or I do. And manipulation of data is what data scientists get paid a lot of money to do, whether the manipulation is accurate or not or how that data is interpreted is another story, but that's kind of the whole point.

[Sign5]

Wade severely underrated again. No one outside Jordan provide anywhere close to the rim protection that Wade provided his teams at SG. Many in which were game saving plays

Most of those guys were primarily 3 D/defensive oriented players. Wade had to shoulder a bulk of the offensive duties and energy on that for most of his career and was still a superb defender. Tese lists never fully take these points into consideration.

[falcolombardi]

Wade severely underrated again. No one outside Jordan provide anywhere close to the rim protection that Wade provided his teams at SG. Many in which were game saving plays but alas.

Rim protection is not really that much of a jordan thingh imo. That is clearly wade here i believe

Jordan is clearly the bettwr 1 on 1 defender

[trelos6]

Surely since 2018, Marcus Smart has jumped into the top 10.

[longtallbrad]

Kobe Bryant

(I don't understand why he isn't already on the list, but I'm new to this thread.)

[HeartBreakKid]

Kobe Bryant

(I don't understand why he isn't already on the list, but I'm new to this thread.)

Played good defense when he was young, then went a few years not playing defense.

[LAL1947]

Kobe Bryant

(I don't understand why he isn't already on the list, but I'm new to this thread.)

Four reasons...

1) Timmy fans, trying to make it seem like Duncan was Top 5 all-time by diminishing Kobe. These will also make it sound like KG, Dirk or Wade were better than or equal to Kobe, to try and help with that illusion. Look at the history of the "Peaks project", where Duncan is the only one who keeps climbing up the ranks as time goes by, even after he retired... while Kobe keeps going down, and not always to players who came after him.

2) Lebron fans, trying to create distance between him and Kobe so they can pretend Lebron was on the same level as MJ.

3) Anti-Kobe peeps, who still haven't gotten over the beatings he gave their teams and favorite players.

4) A few anti-Lakers peeps.

The lengths some of them will go to diminish players they don't like or to build up their favored players never ceases to astound me. I mean if we all want to write creative narratives we can, but we really shouldn't.

[AEnigma]

Crazy how reality has such an anti-Kobe bias…