#3 Greatest Defensive C of All-Time - Top 10 Defense at each position project

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I'm changing my vote to Thurmond for good. As far as why I'm not voting Robinson or Mutombo first, I guess I just think Thurmond and Wilt were that much further out in front of their era.

Should they be measured against their eras?

I may have only seen 3 Nate Thurmond game videos and in one of those videos Nate was a power forward playing with Wilt as his center. I have not seen those videos in the last three years but I am placing Nate Thurmond below Dikembe unless the era can somehow make Nate Thurmand more valuable.

Many people dislike the hypothetical time travel idea of imagining players in different eras. If imagine Nate Thurmond and Dikembe playing in 1978 I think Dikembe will be the better defender.

Measured against his era I give Bob Cousy a pass for shooting under 40% from the floor and I just focous on what a faboulous ball handler he was particularly for his era. For his era Cousy was probably better than Damian Lillard but I think Damian Lillard is the better player.

[FrogBros4Life]

Then too, to the prior poster saying implying that those backing Robinson haven't watched the games but calling him in the same tier as Unseld.

Unseld was an elite rebounder, a superlative outlet passer and bone-crunching pick-setter. Neither in his physical profile nor his statistical profile nor his reputation nor his team's statistical record nor his longevity (especially with regard to any evidence of defensive impact) suggest he belongs in the conversation with the likes of the players mentioned.

Unseld didn't have amazing defensive box score stats, but he's another one of those players that I think has a value greater than what is captured numerically. Despite that, he did lead the NBA in DBPM for 2 years (it wasn't tracked his first 5 years in the league), and had a DRTG between 97 and 88 for the first 5 years it was kept (and again, there is no data for his first 5 years in the league).

His team defensive data for their best 5 year stretch:

72-73: OppPPG=4th, TeamDRTG= 5th
73-74: OppPPG=5th, TeamDRTG=4th
74-75: OppPPG=2nd, TeamDRTG=1st
75-76: OppPPG=3rd, TeamDRTG=2nd
76-77: OppPPG=6th, TeamDRTG=8th

And they weren't bad in the years before or after.

On top of that, I think Unseld is probably one of the top 5 guys ever in terms of boxing out (a crucial factor in team defense), and he might be the best defensive communicator in the history of the game. It's possible I may be overstating Unseld's defensive contributions somewhat, but your response seems to indicate you are vastly under rating him in that area.

[FrogBros4Life]

As someone who watched the entirety of David Robinson's career, I'm surprised so many people are ranking him this highly. I'm curious as to whether most of you actually watched him play or if you are only going off of his stats. He only anchored one "elite" defense before the Spurs got Duncan. Not sure how you can vote anyone other than Wilt or Thurmond here. I'm not sure Olajuwon should have gone before those two either, but Hakeem at #2 is much easier to argue than Robinson at #3. After Olajuwon/Wilt/Thurman, I think the next 3 are probably Mutombo/Ewing/Wallace (in some order). Robinson would be in the next tier with Howard/Mourning and Wes Unseld. Then you also have guys like KAJ and Shaq, both of whom impacted defenses with their sheer presence in ways that stats and boxscores can't properly capture (though I'd put Robinson above them both defensively).

Robinson was a very good defender overall, and an elite shot blocker/rim protector, but there's more to defense than blocking shots. I'll again point to the fact that the Spurs didn't really turn into a truly great defensive team until Duncan's arrival. Robinson wasn't as good of a man to man defender as Mutombo/Ewing/Wallace, though he was the best at jumping the passing lanes. He wasn't as good at switching on pick and rolls as he's getting credit for either. And in crunch time during the post season, he was actually targeted more than he was feared.

This isn't just about the one series vs. Hakeem either. Shaq and Karl Malone both ate his lunch repeatedly, and who can forget Charles Barkely with Robinson on an island...sizing him up at the end of game 6 in the 93 playoffs before sending the Spurs home. That's the matchup Charles and the Suns wanted on that possession. Chuck had been lighting up Robinson all game. I'm not sure you can take any of the other guys mentioned and think of a time where another superstar player deliberately wanted them to guard them. But with Robinson in the playoffs that was often the case.

As a Spurs fan, this is definitely a big part of why I'm staying away from the Admiral for now. I think he was an underrated team defender and the matchup exploitation makes him look worse than he really was, but it still happened. One-on-one defense is an important part of defense too. David's defensive reputation didn't really solidify as positive, let alone great, until Duncan arrived to complete the back line and help out with some of the tougher matchups.

I don't know what to say (but I'm going to try to find the words). I watched most of his career unfold in realtime, too (for whatever that's worth, given most of us were kids/teenagers for his pre-injury career--->don't know that age 16 me had more valid opinions than old me watching the same player on YouTube; EDIT: in fact, I almost guarantee the opposite is true), and I got a different opinion regarding his team defense and pnr defense and switchability.
These kinds of exchanges illustrate the problem with the "eye-test" as the sole component (or perhaps even a majority component) of any basketball opinion. Don't get me wrong: it's needed, definitely a necessary component of any criteria.
But here we are, both watching the same player(s) [probably in many of the same games], and arriving at different conclusions.

Either one of us is wrong, or both of us are wrong......otherwise we'd arrive at the same conclusions. And that (50+% of participants being "wrong") is true of any major disagreement on this forum. This is where some objective indicators are handy, especially if you can correlate them to what you see. Not every bit of evidence needs to agree with a person to "validate" his opinion; but if nearly every bit of evidence contradicts what he thinks......idk, that probably should give one pause.


I'm next going to address a few specific statements made.....

Re: Robinson "only anchored one "elite" defense before the Spurs got Duncan"
Semantics are important. In the previous thread we had a poster declare Hakeem could "make defenses elite basically by himself". FrogBros is saying Robinson only anchored ONE "elite" defense prior to Duncan.
Well, Hakeem only anchored THREE defenses (in 18 seasons) that were better than what the Spurs AVERAGED in Robinson's SEVEN full seasons before Duncan arrived. To say the least, there must be a significant semantic disagreement on the meaning of "elite" between these two posters.

Or maybe the problem/discrepancy lies elsewhere; in a misconception, perhaps. FrogBros also goes on to say Robinson has no place being ahead of Nate Thurmond. Well, if Robinson only anchored one "elite" defense prior to Duncan, then technically, Thurmond anchored precisely ZERO elite defenses in his career. He appears to have only been a part of ONE "elite" defense in his career (playing alongside Wilt in his rookie season; probably can't be called the "anchor" with Wilt being there, and with Thurmond playing just 25.9 mpg that season).
Hakeem anchored only two "elite" defenses, too, I guess. For one of them he had solid defensive teammates in Vernon Maxwell and Robert Horry at least. For Robinson's one elite defense (I assume it's got to be the best one of his pre-Duncan years, '91), his only really notable defensive teammate was 32-yr-old Paul Pressey (who played 24 mpg).


Re: "Chuck had been lighting him up all game."
Hmm.....in that game Barkley had 28 pts on just 50.1% TS (45.8% eFG%), 4 ORebs, 4 ast, 4 tov; and that was in 42 minutes playing time; his individual ORtg was 100 in that game (poor, and below even the team average). Prior to that shot he had 26 pts on 48.2% TS (43.5% eFG%). Wouldn't exactly call that "lighting him up". And looking at the play again [I did so just now], I can't see that as any kind of poor defense or misplay on Robinson's part. It's a lightly contested pull-up jumper from 20 ft......that's pretty much the shot you want Barkley taking, no?. Should Robinson have played him tighter? Risk allowing him to get into the painted area [where he's most dangerous, and not remotely close], or put greater risk of fouling him in a tie game?
So the shot went in......that doesn't equal poor defense (thinking so is result-oriented thinking). And the above stat-line indicates Barkley wasn't exactly "lighting up" anyone.
The Suns as a team had a 103.8 ORtg that game (they were 113.3 ORtg in the rs). The Suns had a 102.8 ORtg for the series (-10.5 from rs standard).
Can't remember if Barkley was being primarily guarded by Robinson much of the series, tbh, but Barkley for the series avg 26.2 ppg @ 53.8% TS (46.7% eFG%), 2.8 oreb, 3.3 apg, 2.8 topg in 40.2 mpg. In the rs he'd averaged 25.6 ppg (in just 37.6 mpg) @ 59.6% TS, 3.1 oreb, 5.1 apg, 3.1 topg.

This is a very well thought out reply. While I might not agree with everything you wrote, I certainly can't say any of it is "wrong" with any authority. As for Robinson vs. Hakeem...I said in my first post that I thought it was perhaps a bit of a stretch to have Hakeem at #2, but that Hakeem at #2 seemed less curious than Robinson at #3. I think Robinson may have been a more consistent defender throughout their careers, in terms of what is measured by statistics, but that Hakeem undeniably had the greater defensive peak and the overall higher defensive impact in the post season. Robinson's floor was higher, but Hakeems ceiling was higher, defensively speaking. I also take into account that Hakeem played at an elite level overall for a longer period of time than Robinson, and I'm a big believer in actual contributions outweighing hypothetically superior ones (Would Robinson have ended up the better defensive player had he played at the level of his career arc for 5 more seasons instead of retiring in 03? Possibly. But he didn't). Hakeem also was playing PF at times during the Sampson years which I also think hampered his individual and team defensive numbers (but still not enough to drop him below Robinson).

As for Robinson vs. Thurmond. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to players who are universally regarded as being great defenders in the era(s) where defensive stats we have today aren't available. It's possible I'm giving Thurmond too much of the benefit here as you make a good point. My gut says that Thurmond was better based on the data that is available, what I have seen of his defensive game, and the testimony of his peers. Robinson is generally not as revered by his all time great peers as you might think, and as the ones who played against him for years and had to game plan against him, I think that holds more weight than a lot of people take into account. He also had his leadership questioned by multiple teammates pre-Duncan era, and always had something of a label for being soft. This is all intangible stuff, so it's hard to quantify to what degree it shapes his ranking, but it definitely matters. How MUCH it matters, is the question.

As for Robinson vs. Barkley...I'll just say, I think Barkley outplayed him on both ends of the court in an elimination game on Robinson's home floor. Now...Barkley is an ATG and he was the MVP that year, so I'm not holding it against Robinson as a single occurrence as much as I am of it representing a pattern with Robinson in the playoffs. Barkley was licking his chops when he saw he had Robinson on him. For someone who is supposedly the #3 best defensive center of all time, with a significant reach advantage on the player with the ball, this seems like a counter intuitive reaction. Did Barkley end up taking the shot that the Spurs wanted him to take? Possibly. The problem is, regardless of what the Spurs wanted, Barkley ended up taking the shot HE wanted to take. Robinson back peddled way too hard on the play and couldn't recover. Barkley got a clean look and won the series. I'd like to compare that to a similar play: Kevin Love on Steph Curry in the last minute of Game 7 in 16. Now, Love is obviously a much worse defender than Robinson, and Curry is also a much harder cover for a big man in that spot, both as a shooter and a driver, but Love bottled him up perfectly TWICE in one possession, in what was a harder cover, in a more important game, without the homecourt advantage. You said yourself that Robinson only "lightly" contested Barkley's shot. Love smothered Curry. THAT's how you defend a series ending possession. When your season is on the line, you need to do better than "lightly contest".

Sometimes timely plays in the last minute are more valuable than franchise level play for the first 47 min. I feel like this sort of thing happened to Robinson (a lack of timely defensive stops) in important playoff games a lot more than any other all time great defender. How much stock you put into timely plays vs a player's boxscore/impact stats/total body of work is up for debate.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

1991 Pressey Spurs
Spurs best defense could not defend small ball Run TMC Warriors in the playoffs.
Willie Anderson had a good defensive repution and I think he deserved it. Rod Strickland was a good defender. Cummings was good. Wingate was only in the NBA for his defense. Sean Elliot was probably the weakest link defensively and he was not bad.

That Spurs team should have been as able to handle the Warriors small ball as any team.
The Spurs match the Warriors small with small by reducing Cummings minutes but it did not work.

Robinson's main pre injury teammates
Strickland, Cheek, Cummings, Anderson, Elliot, Wingate, Vernon Maxwell, Brickowski
::::: Pressey, Sidney Green :::: Avery Johnson, Vinnie Johnson, Antoine Carr :::: Dale Ellis, JR Reid, Vinny Del Negro, Lloyd Daniels
::: Rodman, Nagelle Knight ::::: Chuck Persons, Doc Rivers, Will Perdue

Some very good defenders and some poor defenders.
Elliot, Anderson, Cummings and Strickland played the most minutes with Robinson
Robinson's teams were usually in the top 5 in holding opposing team Fg percentage down. They were best in the league twice. The playoffs did not work out so well for those Spurs.

[trex_8063]

Thanks for the well-worded reply. I still disagree on a few points [potentially, anyway], which I'll outline below.

This is a very well thought out reply. While I might not agree with everything you wrote, I certainly can't say any of it is "wrong" with any authority. As for Robinson vs. Hakeem...I said in my first post that I thought it was perhaps a bit of a stretch to have Hakeem at #2, but that Hakeem at #2 seemed less curious than Robinson at #3. I think Robinson may have been a more consistent defender throughout their careers, in terms of what is measured by statistics, but that Hakeem undeniably had the greater defensive peak and the overall higher defensive impact in the post season.

I need to look more into the playoff defensive impact, as I've not done the thorough study; but you're not the first to mention that. I can tick one series off the list of series's to check (the aforementioned '93 WCSF, where the Suns were held to an ORtg that was -10.5 relative to their rs standard).

Robinson's floor was higher, but Hakeems ceiling was higher, defensively speaking. I also take into account that Hakeem played at an elite level overall for a longer period of time than Robinson, and I'm a big believer in actual contributions outweighing hypothetically superior ones (Would Robinson have ended up the better defensive player had he played at the level of his career arc for 5 more seasons instead of retiring in 03? Possibly. But he didn't). Hakeem also got stuck at PF for the Sampson years which I also think hampered his individual and team defensive numbers (but still not enough to drop him below Robinson).

I might disagree regarding Hakeem being an elite level defender for a longer period. I've tended to see Robinson as a better pnr defender, and that opinion might be partially shaped in watching earlier years of Hakeem. He was a pinch "raw" in some of his very early years----some fundamental positioning which wasn't quite right, maybe biting on fakes a little easier, and the occasional unnecessary grand-standing swat into the front rows. Consequently, I feel like Hakeem---while certainly good defensively [maybe even very good] right from the start----took a few years to become a true defensive giant. Robinson, otoh, seemed more of a defensive giant right from the start. And, as was illustrated in the previous thread (and copied into my vote post itt), Robinson appeared the more solid in terms of defensive impact during respective post-primes.

Also, I always perceived that Olajuwon (despite being shorter) was more the C on those early Houston squads, and Sampson the over-sized PF.

As for Robinson vs. Barkley...I'll just say, I think Barkley outplayed him on both ends of the court in an elimination game on Robinson's home floor. Now...Barkley is an ATG and he was the MVP that year, so I'm not holding it against Robinson as a single occurrence as much as I am of it representing a pattern with Robinson in the playoffs. Barkley was licking his chops when he saw he had Robinson on him. For someone who is supposedly the #3 best defensive center of all time, with a significant reach advantage on the player with the ball, this seems like a counter intuitive reaction. Did Barkley end up taking the shot that the Spurs wanted him to take? Possibly. The problem is, regardless of what the Spurs wanted, Barkley ended up taking the shot HE wanted to take. Robinson back peddled way too hard on the play and couldn't recover. Barkley got a clean look and won the series. I'd like to compare that to a similar play: Kevin Love on Steph Curry in the last minute of Game 7 in 16. Now, Love is obviously a much worse defender than Robinson, and Curry is also a much harder cover for a big man in that spot, both as a shooter and a driver, but Love bottled him up perfectly TWICE in one possession, in what was a harder cover, in a more important game, without the homecourt advantage. You said yourself that Robinson only "lightly" contested Barkley's shot. Love smothered Curry. THAT's how you defend a series ending possession. When your season is on the line, you need to do better than "lightly contest".

Personally, I'd say it's a big stretch to say Barkley outplayed Robinson on the defensive end.

And I don't think the Love/Curry comparison is appropriate, given how different the situation is. Ask yourself what's on the table for Barkley in that possession (a tie game)? Really, it's anything. ANY score will get them the win (or most likely, provided there's almost no time on the clock). A 3-pointer is not likely to be attempted (because not necessary and is the lowest % shot). So Robinson does not need (nor should) overplay the outside shot for that reason alone. Now let's further consider the opponent: Barkley, deadly on the inside, mediocre on the outside.

To illustrate the difference, let's ask those same questions of the Love/Curry play.
What's the situation? Not a tie game, but rather down by three, ~40 seconds left. So is a 3pointer more "on the table" in this situation? Quite obviously. Now who's the star with the ball? Stephen Curry.....the single greatest 3pt threat the game has ever seen.
So I don't quite see how Love smothering Curry on the outside and clearly overplaying the 3pt threat is particularly germane to an analysis of how Robinson played an entirely different type of scoring threat in an entirely different kind of situation.

[FrogBros4Life]

Also, I always perceived that Olajuwon (despite being shorter) was more the C on those early Houston squads, and Sampson the over-sized PF.

Hakeem played the 5 on offense, but I seem to remember him taking the 4 at times on defense when they were both on the floor together. I'm not saying he played exclusively at the 4, or even the majority of the possessions, merely that it was something that happened at times. If I'm wrong on this point I stand corrected.

Personally, I'd say it's a big stretch to say Barkley outplayed Robinson on the defensive end.

Again, I'm not saying that Barkley outplayed him on the defensive end for the whole series. For that one game? Yeah, I'd say he did. Barkley had 17 defensive rebounds, compared to 7 for Robinson. Barkley had 4 steals and 2 blocks. Robinson had 4 blocks and 2 steals. Steals are generally a little more valuable than blocks so I again give Barkley the advantage. Barkley also had a lot of deflections and was generally more of a disruptive defensive force the entire game. Also back to timely contributions. Barkley had a steal on Robinson in the post during the last minute or so with the game undecided that helped determine the outcome. And on the biggest defensive stop of the game, Robinson couldn't return the favor. Not sure how anyone can say Robinson played better offensively or defensively that specific game. Seems pretty cut and dry.

And I don't think the Love/Curry comparison is appropriate, given how different the situation is. Ask yourself what's on the table for Barkley in that possession (a tie game)? Really, it's anything. ANY score will get them the win (or most likely, provided there's almost no time on the clock). A 3-pointer is not likely to be attempted (because not necessary and is the lowest % shot). So Robinson does not need (nor should) overplay the outside shot for that reason alone. Now let's further consider the opponent: Barkley, deadly on the inside, mediocre on the outside.

To illustrate the difference, let's ask those same questions of the Love/Curry play.
What's the situation? Not a tie game, but rather down by three, ~40 seconds left. So is a 3pointer more "on the table" in this situation? Quite obviously. Now who's the star with the ball? Stephen Curry.....the single greatest 3pt threat the game has ever seen.
So I don't quite see how Love smothering Curry on the outside and clearly overplaying the 3pt threat is particularly germane to an analysis of how Robinson played an entirely different type of scoring threat in an entirely different kind of situation.

I mean....I don't necessarily disagree with anything you're saying here in theory (except for the comparison itself not being appropriate), but it still doesn't change my reasoning, nor do I think anything you're saying changes the situation for what it was, or what actually ended up happening. Were the stakes higher in the CLE/GSW game? Sure. But it goes both ways. There was more pressure on Love to defend that shot, and comparatively less pressure on Robinson (both were elimination games -- but one was a game 6 semi final game at home, the other game 7 of the NBA finals on the road...against a 73-9 team that you were down 3-1 to no less). If a 3 is less likely to be attempted by Barkley, that also gives Robinson more room for error on how to defend. GS had more time on the clock so Love had to worry about Curry going for a quick 2, possibly getting an And 1, as well as defending the 3.

It's relevant because they were both plays where the other team's best player had the ball in an iso situation at the top, being guarded by the other teams big man, with a series on the line. One was a textbook example of how to guard the play, the other not so much. Even if Curry would have made the shot, Love played great defense. Even if Barkley would have missed the shot, Robinson's defense there was shaky at best ("lightly contested" as you said). Love was also a 4 (or 5) guarding a 1. Robinson was a 5 guarding a 4. ^^^^Nothing you said up there changes any of that. My point for bringing up the Curry shot was more or less to show that I would expect the third best defensive center of all time to have a bit more presence of mind in a situation where your season is on the line and the end result is giving the other team's best player a relatively open jumper because you didn't defend the play properly. Hats off to Barkley for making a clutch shot, but Robinson could have (and should have) made it a little tougher on him. If you think Robinson defended that play as well as he possibly could have, that's fine, but I disagree and don't really know what to say to anyone who thinks otherwise, as I doubt anything I say will change your mind.

[cecilthesheep]

I'm changing my vote to Thurmond for good. As far as why I'm not voting Robinson or Mutombo first, I guess I just think Thurmond and Wilt were that much further out in front of their era.

Should they be measured against their eras?

I may have only seen 3 Nate Thurmond game videos and in one of those videos Nate was a power forward playing with Wilt as his center. I have not seen those videos in the last three years but I am placing Nate Thurmond below Dikembe unless the era can somehow make Nate Thurmand more valuable.

Many people dislike the hypothetical time travel idea of imagining players in different eras. If imagine Nate Thurmond and Dikembe playing in 1978 I think Dikembe will be the better defender.

Measured against his era I give Bob Cousy a pass for shooting under 40% from the floor and I just focous on what a faboulous ball handler he was particularly for his era. For his era Cousy was probably better than Damian Lillard but I think Damian Lillard is the better player.

In an all-time ranking like this, I would put Cousy ahead of Lillard one thousand percent of the time. We're not ranking most advanced defenders here, we're ranking greatest.

Looking at it another way: Dikembe was probably tougher for opposing teams to score on in absolute terms because he had the benefit of training, medicine, and evolved defensive schemes that Thurmond never did. So yes, if you threw them both into 1978 at their peaks, Dikembe would be the better defender. But if Thurmond and Mutombo had both been born in 1957, grown up with access to the same resources, and ended up playing NBA basketball in 1978, I think Thurmond would be the better defender, and I think that comparison is more meaningful.

[cecilthesheep]

Compiled some head-to-head stats for Wilt and Thurmond vs some HOF centers they played against. These aren't quite as meaningful as they were for perimeter guys, given that centers are more responsible for playing team defense, but for whatever it's worth:

.

Good stat work.
Based on what you did I think I will be voting for Thurmand over Chamberlain. Defense against your own man is perhaps half of defense with the rest being team defense and defensive rebounding.

Team defense mattered more in later eras and defending your own man mattered more in Wilts era because defenses were more man to man focoussed back then. Still the quality of the help mattered. Who had better defensive teammates, Wilt or Thurmand?


I don't think Jerry Lucas was the center in Cincinnati but I don't remember whether the centers guarded him.

This is a great point, Basketball-Reference has Lucas as a PF for most of his career. I don't know why I thought of him as a center; my bad on that.

[cecilthesheep]

As a Spurs fan, this is definitely a big part of why I'm staying away from the Admiral for now. I think he was an underrated team defender and the matchup exploitation makes him look worse than he really was, but it still happened. One-on-one defense is an important part of defense too. David's defensive reputation didn't really solidify as positive, let alone great, until Duncan arrived to complete the back line and help out with some of the tougher matchups.

Sorry but I have to call this out. I don't have access to them right now, but when possible if you want I'll type up the defensive scouting reports on Robinson from after his first two years from the Rick Barry Handbooks, maybe the general write up from the Hollander ones too (I could dig out an article asking whether he was better than MJ from maybe circa 1992, which is a bit more general, and I think maybe stats based, if anyone cares).

It just isn't true that his defensive rep wasn't solidly positive he was clearly an elite defender and was known as such.

.

I'd add that his DPOY came in '92, and he finished just 0.010 DPOY shares behind Hakeem for DPOY in '94 (Duncan was still in highschool for both).

These are very salient points, and so are the ones Trex made in his other comment. I think I overstated myself when talking about Admiral's reputation. I guess I placed too much significance on questions I remember people having about his ability as a one on one stopper. I stand by my belief that those questions were asked, but clearly they weren't as damaging to his reputation as I said they were.

[FrogBros4Life]

I might disagree regarding Hakeem being an elite level defender for a longer period. I've tended to see Robinson as a better pnr defender, and that opinion might be partially shaped in watching earlier years of Hakeem. He was a pinch "raw" in some of his very early years----some fundamental positioning which wasn't quite right, maybe biting on fakes a little easier, and the occasional unnecessary grand-standing swat into the front rows. Consequently, I feel like Hakeem---while certainly good defensively [maybe even very good] right from the start----took a few years to become a true defensive giant. Robinson, otoh, seemed more of a defensive giant right from the start. And, as was illustrated in the previous thread (and copied into my vote post itt), Robinson appeared the more solid in terms of defensive impact during respective post-primes.

Forgot to reply to this earlier, but I agree with most of this, and this is similar to what I was saying about Robinson having the higher defensive floor with Hakeem having the higher defensive ceiling. Robinson was a more impactful team defender right out of the gate, but Robinson wasn't an ordinary rookie either. As for who played elite defense longer...I dunno, Robinson's role changed so drastically when Duncan got there. He still played elite defense, I think some metrics even have him as having career defensive years in some of his seasons with Duncan, and obviously their team defense was better...but it was easier for Robinson to focus more on one side of the ball at that point. And even though he was focusing more on one side of the ball, I'm not sure that Duncan still wasn't more important (if not better) in that area, while Hakeem was his team's best and most important defensive player his first 16 years, with the possible argument for Pippen in 99.

[HeartBreakKid]

Bottling Robinson's entire defensive career to 2 or 3 games in order to discredit him doesn't seem very convincing - and you'd basically have to ignore Robinson's career with Duncan to act like he is actually short on defensive longevity. Him playing with Duncan shouldn't mean his career from that point onward doesn't count, he was an excellent player the first 3 years or so with Duncan - and remained an excellent defender until his retirement.

I also harshly disagree with the statement that the last minute of a game is more important than the first 47. I mean it literally is not true, and there is mountains of evidence - essentially every game that was ever played that would prove that statement to be false. Discrediting someone based on one possession has little place on an all time list.

Saying that Robinson got eaten up by an all time great in Barkley, when he didn't doesn't make sense as ever all time great has hard problems guarding other great players. Bill Russell is #1 and he has been dumped on plenty of times.

I also see a lot more emphasis in this thread and the last one about man to man defense. Man to man defense has never been as important as help defense for a center - that is not a recent thing. Bill Russell is not the GOAT defender because he is the GOAT man to man defender. In fact Russell is ahead of his time because he realized that coaches put too much emphasis on shutting down your man, and that you can win basketball games even if you can't stop the guy who you are guarding. Coaches thought Bill Russell was stupid for becoming a real defensive playmaker, and he ended up anchoring a defense that was era's ahead of the competition in both college and the pros.

Centers have bigger priorities than stopping other centers from scoring on them in the post - that is not a recent phenomenon. I understand that the offensive games of other centers like Kareem, Chamberlain and Malone may give the impression that post defense is as valuable as help defense back then, but I can't piece together the logic for that at all. In basketball, affecting more than one player is usually more valuable than just stopping your own man - and center's are highly wanted because they can protect the rim so a good defensive center is affecting more than 1 offensive player on nearly every possession - that accumulates a lot higher than someone who can force a volume scoring center to shoot a worst % over the course of a game.

I do appreciate FrogBros for coming out and sparking some debate here, certainly made me re-think about what I value from defense as well as see if I was overlooking something from Robinson.

[70sFan]

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

For those who woul like to study Thurmond defense more, here are all games I found with him as a center (so not counting 1964 Finals).

For those who don't have enough time to watch, I've made a video with Thurmond and Cowens and there is some defense included here:

Watch on YouTube

[FrogBros4Life]

Bottling Robinson's entire defensive career to 2 or 3 games in order to discredit him doesn't seem very convincing - and you'd basically have to ignore Robinson's career with Duncan to act like he is actually short on defensive longevity. Him playing with Duncan shouldn't mean his career from that point onward doesn't count, he was an excellent player the first 3 years or so with Duncan - and remained an excellent defender until his retirement.

I also harshly disagree with the statement that the last minute of a game is more important than the first 47. I mean it literally is not true, and there is mountains of evidence - essentially every game that was ever played that would prove that statement to be false. Discrediting someone based on one possession has little place on an all time list.

Saying that Robinson got eaten up by an all time great in Barkley, when he didn't doesn't make sense as ever all time great has hard problems guarding other great players. Bill Russell is #1 and he has been dumped on plenty of times.

I also see a lot more emphasis in this thread and the last one about man to man defense. Man to man defense has never been as important as help defense for a center - that is not a recent thing. Bill Russell is not the GOAT defender because he is the GOAT man to man defender. In fact Russell is ahead of his time because he realized that coaches put too much emphasis on shutting down your man, and that you can win basketball games even if you can't stop the guy who you are guarding. Coaches thought Bill Russell was stupid for becoming a real defensive playmaker, and he ended up anchoring a defense that was era's ahead of the competition in both college and the pros.

Centers have bigger priorities than stopping other centers from scoring on them in the post - that is not a recent phenomenon. I understand that the offensive games of other centers like Kareem, Chamberlain and Malone may give the impression that post defense is as valuable as help defense back then, but I can't piece together the logic for that at all. In basketball, affecting more than one player is usually more valuable than just stopping your own man - and center's are highly wanted because they can protect the rim so a good defensive center is affecting more than 1 offensive player on nearly every possession - that accumulates a lot higher than someone who can force a volume scoring center to shoot a worst % over the course of a game.

I do appreciate FrogBros for coming out and sparking some debate here, certainly made me re-think about what I value from defense as well as see if I was overlooking something from Robinson.

I'm not reducing Robinson's career to 2 or 3 games and I said as much initially. I said specifically that what happened in the Suns series wasn't a single event that I was magnifying, but rather part of a larger pattern of what happened to Robinson in the post season. I'm also not trying to discredit Robinson as I've also said I do believe he is one of the 10 best defensive centers (probably one of the 10 best defensive players regardless of position), I was just skeptical of whether or not he was #3 all time in that department. I also wasn't trying to say that his career post Duncan doesn't count, but that it might not be fair to compare his post Duncan career to his own pre Duncan career since his role changed so drastically.

As for whether or not the last minute of a game is more important than the first 47...I don't think that's the case in a concrete sense, because not every game is won or lost in the final minute. It's a fluid situation, but certainly there have been many times where many players in many games have negated an otherwise great performance by costing their team a win with a bad decision (or several of them) in crunch time. You play to win games, not to put up pretty statlines. If player A is having a phenomenal game and his teammate does something to lose the game, I don't think you can hold that against him. If player A is having a phenomenal game and then he himself does something to lose the game, then that's a different story. You can say he had a great overall game while still costing his team a win. I don't think those are mutually exclusive statements. Russell Westbrook has a number of games like that in the past for example, though he now seems to be having them less often.

I agree that Centers (generally) have more defensive responsibility than other positions, which is why I made a distinction with Robinson and Hakeem about best vs most important defensive players (It's murkier with Robinson and Duncan since they were both defensive big men -- Robinson was prob their best defensive player in 99 but Duncan was still arguably more important to that side of the ball...on the flip side take the SSOL Suns where Amare was their best scorer but Nash was more important on that side of the ball). I think Kawhai Leonard was the Spurs best defensive player in '14, in that he literally played defense better than anyone else on the the team...but Duncan was still the most important defensive player because his defensive responsibilities entailed more than just playing lock down D. You can probably say the same thing about Igoudala/Draymond for GS in 15. With Robinson in 93, he was wearing both hats. That being said, I don't think you can use that as a means to absolve a Center whos man to man D isn't there. That's a general statement, not an indictment of Robinson for one game in one series. And to reiterate, I do think it's possible to play good defense and still give up a bucket. No one is going to block every shot or stop every basket, but that's not the point of contention.

[Owly]

Then too, to the prior poster saying implying that those backing Robinson haven't watched the games but calling him in the same tier as Unseld.

Unseld was an elite rebounder, a superlative outlet passer and bone-crunching pick-setter. Neither in his physical profile nor his statistical profile nor his reputation nor his team's statistical record nor his longevity (especially with regard to any evidence of defensive impact) suggest he belongs in the conversation with the likes of the players mentioned.

Unseld didn't have amazing defensive box score stats, but he's another one of those players that I think has a value greater than what is captured numerically. Despite that, he did lead the NBA in DBPM for 2 years (it wasn't tracked his first 5 years in the league), and had a DRTG between 97 and 88 for the first 5 years it was kept (and again, there is no data for his first 5 years in the league).

His team defensive data for their best 5 year stretch:

72-73: OppPPG=4th, TeamDRTG= 5th
73-74: OppPPG=5th, TeamDRTG=4th
74-75: OppPPG=2nd, TeamDRTG=1st
75-76: OppPPG=3rd, TeamDRTG=2nd
76-77: OppPPG=6th, TeamDRTG=8th

And they weren't bad in the years before or after.

On top of that, I think Unseld is probably one of the top 5 guys ever in terms of boxing out (a crucial factor in team defense), and he might be the best defensive communicator in the history of the game. It's possible I may be overstating Unseld's defensive contributions somewhat, but your response seems to indicate you are vastly under rating him in that area.

Every one of those defenses are after Hayes arrived.

In '74 the rotation is mostly the same (Riordan, Hayes, Chenier, Clark and Unseld. Porters minutes come up. Stallworth falls out of the rotation, Weatherspoon edges into it). K.C. Jones replaces Gene Shue as coach. They move from Baltimore to Washington. Unseld's minutes go down by more than 1300 due to an injury and when active his play was diminished, including notably on defense...

[Team defense section] Unseld's injury allowed forwards and centers to go around him. A lot will depend on whether he can make a full recovery.

The player section notes the knee injuries and contemplating retirement during the season. And the Bullets defense ... stayed the same. And those minutes appear to be going to ... Manny Leaks? To be fair they improve with Unseld healthy the next year and a more set rotation but on even factoring this in this isn't the picture of an elite, high impact defender (cf: see Robinson, David and team performance without him).

That isn't to say he isn't a good defender but it's hard for me to buy him as the big causal factor (versus Hayes) rather than a complementary piece. And a solid, good complementary piece isn't remotely comparable to the guys discussed here. That's that Unseld was most of his career.

And, so far as I can tell, Unseld's DBPM is as high as it is because of assists, which is one of the reasons I'm very, very hesitant in putting any serious trust in it as a metric.

He's got year one where him taking minutes off Ray Scott and Leroy Ellis (and taking Bob Ferry out of the rotation) really improves the D (the one season where we see a big impact, and a case for best defender on a really good defensive team). Then another good but much closer to the pack year (2.1 points per 100 possessions above average). Then they're pretty average until Hayes' arrival. In '80 his final full season they're a below above average on D (0.4 worse per 100 poss than league average). He goes down to circa 2000 minutes in '81 and they improve (+2.8) and then get even better when Unseld retires (+4.4)

As ever there'll be plenty of noise in year-to-year comps. But there's nothing there that says Unseld was generally elite. Nothing that says Hayes wasn't the driving force.

Fwiw, I've not read anything (that I can recall) saying he's an elite defensive communicator, do you have any sources you could share on that? (I do consider him an elite team rebounder, that just isn't nearly enough to warrant being in the same area code as Robinson).

[Owly]

As for whether or not the last minute of a game is more important than the first 47...I don't think that's the case in a concrete sense, because not every game is won or lost in the final minute. It's a fluid situation, but certainly there have been many times where many players in many games have negated an otherwise great performance by costing their team a win with a bad decision (or several of them) in crunch time. You play to win games, not to put up pretty statlines. If player A is having a phenomenal game and his teammate does something to lose the game, I don't think you can hold that against him. If player A is having a phenomenal game and then he himself does something to lose the game, then that's a different story. You can say he had a great overall game while still costing his team a win. I don't think those are mutually exclusive statements. Russell Westbrook has a number of games like that in the past for example, though he now seems to be having them less often.

Regarding the bolded, do you believe that the final play influences the scoreboard more than an earlier one?

If not can you justify saying that it is that play "cost their team a win", rather than the result being the result of a accumulation of factors over the 48 minutes? If "not every game is won or lost in the final minute" how can any game be so, for is it not possible that those earlier minutes could have gone differently and not led to a close game?

[trex_8063]

David Robinson - 6 (bledredwine, penbeast0, iggymcfrack, HeartBreakKid, 70sFan, trex_8063)
Wilt Chamberlain - 2 (Jaivl, SkyHookFTW)
Nate Thurmond - 2 (Dr Positivity, cecilthesheep)
Dikembe Mutombo - 1 (SinceGatlingWasARookie)
Ben Wallace - 1 (pandrade83)


Calling it for Robinson. Will have the next up shortly.

[countryboy667]

Once again, Olajowon gets overrated to hell and back...

[Samurai]

Once again, Olajowon gets overrated to hell and back...

If you want to have greater impact, I would encourage you to actually vote in this project. From what I can tell, many of the voters have not seen the great players of the 60's and even 70's; having that perspective greatly adds to the diversity of voters and can improve the product of these types of projects.

[FrogBros4Life]

Then too, to the prior poster saying implying that those backing Robinson haven't watched the games but calling him in the same tier as Unseld.

Unseld was an elite rebounder, a superlative outlet passer and bone-crunching pick-setter. Neither in his physical profile nor his statistical profile nor his reputation nor his team's statistical record nor his longevity (especially with regard to any evidence of defensive impact) suggest he belongs in the conversation with the likes of the players mentioned.

Unseld didn't have amazing defensive box score stats, but he's another one of those players that I think has a value greater than what is captured numerically. Despite that, he did lead the NBA in DBPM for 2 years (it wasn't tracked his first 5 years in the league), and had a DRTG between 97 and 88 for the first 5 years it was kept (and again, there is no data for his first 5 years in the league).

His team defensive data for their best 5 year stretch:

72-73: OppPPG=4th, TeamDRTG= 5th
73-74: OppPPG=5th, TeamDRTG=4th
74-75: OppPPG=2nd, TeamDRTG=1st
75-76: OppPPG=3rd, TeamDRTG=2nd
76-77: OppPPG=6th, TeamDRTG=8th

And they weren't bad in the years before or after.

On top of that, I think Unseld is probably one of the top 5 guys ever in terms of boxing out (a crucial factor in team defense), and he might be the best defensive communicator in the history of the game. It's possible I may be overstating Unseld's defensive contributions somewhat, but your response seems to indicate you are vastly under rating him in that area.

Every one of those defenses are after Hayes arrived.

In '74 the rotation is mostly the same (Riordan, Hayes, Chenier, Clark and Unseld. Porters minutes come up. Stallworth falls out of the rotation, Weatherspoon edges into it). K.C. Jones replaces Gene Shue as coach. They move from Baltimore to Washington. Unseld's minutes go down by more than 1300 due to an injury and when active his play was diminished, including notably on defense...

[Team defense section] Unseld's injury allowed forwards and centers to go around him. A lot will depend on whether he can make a full recovery.

The player section notes the knee injuries and contemplating retirement during the season. And the Bullets defense ... stayed the same. And those minutes appear to be going to ... Manny Leaks? To be fair they improve with Unseld healthy the next year and a more set rotation but on even factoring this in this isn't the picture of an elite, high impact defender (cf: see Robinson, David and team performance without him).

That isn't to say he isn't a good defender but it's hard for me to buy him as the big causal factor (versus Hayes) rather than a complementary piece. And a solid, good complementary piece isn't remotely comparable to the guys discussed here. That's that Unseld was most of his career.

And, so far as I can tell, Unseld's DBPM is as high as it is because of assists, which is one of the reasons I'm very, very hesitant in putting any serious trust in it as a metric.

He's got year one where him taking minutes off Ray Scott and Leroy Ellis (and taking Bob Ferry out of the rotation) really improves the D (the one season where we see a big impact, and a case for best defender on a really good defensive team). Then another good but much closer to the pack year (2.1 points per 100 possessions above average). Then they're pretty average until Hayes' arrival. In '80 his final full season they're a below above average on D (0.4 worse per 100 poss than league average). He goes down to circa 2000 minutes in '81 and they improve (+2.8) and then get even better when Unseld retires (+4.4)

As ever there'll be plenty of noise in year-to-year comps. But there's nothing there that says Unseld was generally elite. Nothing that says Hayes wasn't the driving force.

Fwiw, I've not read anything (that I can recall) saying he's an elite defensive communicator, do you have any sources you could share on that? (I do consider him an elite team rebounder, that just isn't nearly enough to warrant being in the same area code as Robinson).

The Bullets best years defensively during Unseld's career may have come with Hayes on the roster, but they went from a league average defensive team, to a strong defensive team, in Unseld's rookie season without changing much else of the roster. They were one of the best defenses in the league for 3 of Unseld's first 5 years...all without Hayes. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that Unseld was the backbone of their team D, though obviously Hayes was a vital cog in that as well once he arrived. Also...you claim that Unseld's DBPM is as good as it is because of his assist numbers, but wouldn't that be captured in his OBPM? Am I misinterpreting some of the data?

I could not find any journalistic sources that specifically state that Unseld was a great on court communicator, but there are numerous quotes out there from former teammates, future players, biographers etc. who all note how invaluable he was due to things like his on court leadership, his Bball IQ, and his team oriented approach to the game. I can't use that as irrefutable evidence, but those are obviously (some of) the characteristics you would expect to find in someone who was a great defensive communicator.

I did however find some old threads on RealGM about Unseld where some other posters who saw him play also noted his communication as a major strength. I'm sure there are still some posters here who can corroborate that about him as well.

[FrogBros4Life]

As for whether or not the last minute of a game is more important than the first 47...I don't think that's the case in a concrete sense, because not every game is won or lost in the final minute. It's a fluid situation, but certainly there have been many times where many players in many games have negated an otherwise great performance by costing their team a win with a bad decision (or several of them) in crunch time. You play to win games, not to put up pretty statlines. If player A is having a phenomenal game and his teammate does something to lose the game, I don't think you can hold that against him. If player A is having a phenomenal game and then he himself does something to lose the game, then that's a different story. You can say he had a great overall game while still costing his team a win. I don't think those are mutually exclusive statements. Russell Westbrook has a number of games like that in the past for example, though he now seems to be having them less often.

Regarding the bolded, do you believe that the final play influences the scoreboard more than an earlier one?

If not can you justify saying that it is that play "cost their team a win", rather than the result being the result of a accumulation of factors over the 48 minutes? If "not every game is won or lost in the final minute" how can any game be so, for is it not possible that those earlier minutes could have gone differently and not led to a close game?

This is a tricky question. Think of Schrödinger's Cat, except here we will call it Schrödinger's Last Minute. The last minute of the game isn't the most important minute, until it is.

As a counter point, I brought up Love on Curry in the last minute of Game 7...but you know what had just as much impact on that game if we were to look at it in a vacuum? The Cavs first offensive possession. Someone (prob JR Smith, ha) shot an airball three. Festus Ezili got the rebound under the Cavs basket and Love (again with the impact play) literally ripped the ball out of Ezili's hands and dropped in a layup. You can say....if Love doesn't make that play, then it's a 1 point game in the final minute instead of a 3 point game and the whole dynamic changes. There may be some truth to that, but I don't think you can map out a game like that. Who's to say that the Cavs wouldn't have made up that 2 points somewhere else along the game's timeline? Or that the Warriors don't wind up missing a shot that they otherwise ended up making? Perhaps the refs call the game in a different manner as the tone of the game may have unfolded differently. It's impossible to say. I do think however, that when a game is in reach for either team with less than ~1 min to play, then yes, those remaining possessions are now the most important possessions of the game....BECAUSE OF, all of the possessions that occurred previously, which is why a close game ends up being close in the first place. So....there is no such thing as an unimportant possession, but I don't think you can simply look back and always say the first play of the game was the winning play in a 1 point game. I just don't think basketball works like that. The importance of future moments (possessions) is absolutely contingent on what happens prior to that point in time, as oppossed to all possessions having equal weight at all times during a game. Others may disagree, and that's ok too.