SA37 wrote:cupcakesnake wrote:SA37 wrote:No. Green is vastly overrated, mainly by folks who are data nerds and love advanced stats. Green deserves lots of credit for his pivotal role on G State's championship teams, but people have gone too far with the praise for role players.
At least your consistent with how you undervalue defense.
I'm fine with calling Green's offense "role player", but this is the best defensive player of the era. He's one of the best defenders ever, probably the best defender under 6'7" of all-time.
Overall, Green is a role player and that is how he's been paid. Golden State has never given D Green star money because he's a role player. Golden St traded for J Butler because Green is just too limited to be a top-3 guy on a championship team.
I see a lot of parallels with Marcus Smart. Boston has been fine without Marcus Smart and found better versions of Marcus Smart (J Holiday, D White).I think the same would have been true of G State, but that's speculation I can't prove.
So I guess because the Jazz/Wolves gave Gobert star money... he's a star! Yay.
I guess because the Warriors gave Wiggins and Poole star money and not Draymond... they're stars!
Teams getting good or bad value on a contract should not determine who's a "star". This argument doesn't hold up to 2 minutes of scrutiny, looking at contracts over the years. Think of Scottie Pippen. Jason Kidd in 2001. Nash in 2006. Heck, Steph Curry didn't get paid as a star on his first big extension. Guess these guys were role players on those contracts.
Markets have overvalued scorers and undervalued defenders. This suppressed Green's market, and allowed Golden State to not have to do something like max him out. They got him for 4 years/100m back in 2020, one year after they had to max out Klay Thompson, and only a very casual fan could argue Klay>Dray. You'd have to ignore all stats and just say: buckets!
I have no idea what you mean by the Jimmy Butler point. I don't think Golden State is a championship anyways (Green is 35, Steph is 37, Butler turns 36 next month). Even if they were... Draymond is still a top 3 guy on that team. I mean... I can't even think of who would have an argument for that on that roster. Hield? Podz? Kuminga? That would be a wild take.
No statistical argument to make for Smart=Dray. I don't know how you'd back up that take. I liked prime Smart just fine, but thought he was overrated when he won DPOY (he was the 3rd or 4th best defender on that team, imo). Boston didn't struggle when they traded Smart, because they ended up replacing him with Jrue Holiday, who's a better player. Smart wasn't filling a huge role for the Celtics by the end, because they had ball handlers they liked better, and defenders who were as good or better. Smart was a very good defender and okay playmaker.
If you get rid of Draymond, Golden State is a lottery team, in part because the Dubs are still very reliant on his defense. If you got rid of Draymond but brought in, say, Bam Adebayo (or Ausar Thompson, OG, J.Dub), then ya I think the Dubs would be fine. Get rid of him and replace him with an average player, the Warriors are sunk. Their whole defense is built around his all-around defensive play. He's the only reason they can play small on defense, and his playmaking (though less crucial with Jimmy now) allows them to play Steph off the ball, which is the Warriors bread and butter.
I'd say the biggest thing Draymond does right now for the Warriors is he allows them to play without Steph. When Steph hits the bench, the Warriors win those minutes as long as Draymond is on the floor. The offense plummets, but the defense becomes ridiculous. I know you hate on/off when it contradicts your feelings, but Draymond was the most indispensable Warrior this year, even if he's past his prime. Even after Jimmy joined, those Steph/Jimmy minutes without Draymond didn't hit. He's just super baked into what they do on both ends.
