Better defender: Paul Pierce or Klay Thompson

[falcolombardi]

I never understood where this idea that Klay is overrated defensively comes from - cause he doesn't get steals?

Strong wing who's great at guarding 1 - 3 (realistically he can defend 1-4 in today's league)

Not to say Pierce wasn't also a really good defender, but I'd take Klay

actual impact , his presence doesnt correlate with improved results as much as his reputation would suggest

he and other defenders are the eye test/defense equivalent of "empty stats", empty eye test of sorts,

he looks good in defense if you only look at him on ball but doesnt actually inprove a defense much

Doesn't a good defense require good on-ball defenders? Warriors have had historically good defenses with him regularly guarding the point of attack. Obviously Draymond, Bogut, Iguodala were better defenders, but Klay was about as involved in the defense as you can be and we saw the results.

Not sure I trust the defensive impact stats to accurately apportion credit at this point, they seem to me a little premature

some points to make

is perfectly possible for someone to be a good 1vs1 defender at point of attack while being mediocre or even a negative overall by being weak in other áreas (pick and roll defense, rotation and positioning, even defensive rebounding or turnovers to a small extent)

not saying that is klay case, but someone being a good point of attack defender or even a versatile defender doesnt mean he is a good defender

that is somethingh flawed plus minus based defensive stats help with, not as the only thingh of course. but if someone never improves defenses he just is not a good defender at that point

when we see a player with great numbers who doesnt inprove teans we call it empty stats, why not the same about someone who has good eye test but bad results?.

after all the purpose le defending is making the rival score less, just like the purpose of offense is scoring a lot
havung great boxscore numbers or looking good in the defense eye test are proxies, not actual goals

even limitimg guarded opponent field goal % is relative, as a player klay guards struggling can be as much or more about help defense and rim protection that klay himself

this tweet says somethingh similar to my point in shorter terms

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Outside]

actual impact , his presence doesnt correlate with improved results as much as his reputation would suggest

he and other defenders are the eye test/defense equivalent of "empty stats", empty eye test of sorts,

he looks good in defense if you only look at him on ball but doesnt actually inprove a defense much

Doesn't a good defense require good on-ball defenders? Warriors have had historically good defenses with him regularly guarding the point of attack. Obviously Draymond, Bogut, Iguodala were better defenders, but Klay was about as involved in the defense as you can be and we saw the results.

Not sure I trust the defensive impact stats to accurately apportion credit at this point, they seem to me a little premature

some points to make

is perfectly possible for someone to be a good 1vs1 defender at point of attack while being mediocre or even a negative overall by being weak in other áreas (pick and roll defense, rotation and positioning, even defensive rebounding or turnovers to a small extent)

not saying that is klay case, but someone being a good point of attack defender or even a versatile defender doesnt mean he is a good defender

that is somethingh flawed plus minus based defensive stats help with, not as the only thingh of course. but if someone never improves defenses he just is not a good defender at that point

when we see a player with great numbers who doesnt inprove teans we call it empty stats, why not the same about someone who has good eye test but bad results?.

after all the purpose le defending is making the rival score less, just like the purpose of offense is scoring a lot
havung great boxscore numbers or looking good in the defense eye test are proxies, not actual goals

even limitimg guarded opponent field goal % is relative, as a player klay guards struggling can be as much or more about help defense and rim protection that klay himself

this tweet says somethingh similar to my point in shorter terms

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Defense is difficult to assess objectively, but the tweet seems to advocate switching one eye test for another -- essentially saying that someone else's eye test is wrong, but I can tell what matters so my eye test is right.

I think Ben Taylor's analysis of Klay is pretty fair.

Watch on YouTube

[MO12msu]

Something to watch out for with Klay and on-off stats is that he is the guy who was on the floor without both Steph and Dray most of the time because Kerr didn't like to separate those two.

[homecourtloss]

Something to watch out for with Klay and on-off stats is that he is the guy who was on the floor without both Steph and Dray most of the time because Kerr didn't like to separate those two.

Yes, but RAPM accounts for that.

[Warriors Analyst]

Klay Thompson has a very specific defensive skill. He's good at man to man perimeter defense against smaller guards. This kind of defense is highly visible, so it artificially boosts Klay's defensive reputation because every fan watches the on-ball defense of the point guard. It's also a very useful skill, because it spares Steph Curry from chasing around another point guard all game.

If I needed a player to defend a point/small guard, I'd pick Klay over Pierce.

But for everything else, I'd take Pierce. He's bigger, he's stronger, he's longer, and he's super competitive on the defensive end. Pierce is an excellent counter to have against a physically dominant wing, like Lebron or Kawhi. He's not too shabby either against craftier smaller wings like Kobe. His feet look heavy but he never seemed to lack for footspeed in most of these matchups.

I dont think Klay is anything special when he isn't chasing point guards. He's a good competitor and he's decently strong. He's just lacking in size when going up against monster wings. He's 6'7 with a 6'9 wingspan, great size for a 2 guard, but most forwards are bigger than him.

Neither of these players are spectuacular defenders. Both are solid and deserve their reputations. I think they both get a little overrated due to how easy it is to see their defensive contributions, and I think this gets a bit out of hand sometimes with Klay.

Pre injury, I think Klay had made significant strides as a perimeter defender of wings. I think he was our best defender of Kawhi in the Raptors series. As Klay grew into his body, he became stronger and more capable of withstanding the drives of the LeBron and Kawhi types. He was also a very good post defender on switches, to the point that Jerry West referred to him as one of the best post defenders he'd ever seen.

actual impact , his presence doesnt correlate with improved results as much as his reputation would suggest

he and other defenders are the eye test/defense equivalent of "empty stats", empty eye test of sorts,

he looks good in defense if you only look at him on ball but doesnt actually inprove a defense much

Doesn't a good defense require good on-ball defenders? Warriors have had historically good defenses with him regularly guarding the point of attack. Obviously Draymond, Bogut, Iguodala were better defenders, but Klay was about as involved in the defense as you can be and we saw the results.

Not sure I trust the defensive impact stats to accurately apportion credit at this point, they seem to me a little premature

some points to make

is perfectly possible for someone to be a good 1vs1 defender at point of attack while being mediocre or even a negative overall by being weak in other áreas (pick and roll defense, rotation and positioning, even defensive rebounding or turnovers to a small extent)

not saying that is klay case, but someone being a good point of attack defender or even a versatile defender doesnt mean he is a good defender

that is somethingh flawed plus minus based defensive stats help with, not as the only thingh of course. but if someone never improves defenses he just is not a good defender at that point

when we see a player with great numbers who doesnt inprove teans we call it empty stats, why not the same about someone who has good eye test but bad results?.

after all the purpose le defending is making the rival score less, just like the purpose of offense is scoring a lot
havung great boxscore numbers or looking good in the defense eye test are proxies, not actual goals

even limitimg guarded opponent field goal % is relative, as a player klay guards struggling can be as much or more about help defense and rim protection that klay himself

this tweet says somethingh similar to my point in shorter terms

Read on Twitter

?s=19

To jump off of this point as well, I do think that something that Klay did defensively that was hard to quantify was make it harder for lead guards to initiate offensive sets. Klay was very good at shaving seconds off of the shot clock or badgering ball-handlers into making uncomfortable entry passes into the wing.