Center Rankings

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

It's really amazing how you can consider Bogut bad at defense.

Last year he was Second Team All-NBA Defense. He was also 6th in Defensive player of the year voting.

But yeah, he sucks because he doesn't average as many rebounds or blocks as you would like. Good grief.

Yeah, Dude has intangibles and does things that don't show up in the box score.

I despise him.

But, he's still pretty nifty on defense.

Funny thing: When he came out of College and his first few Seasons with the Dear, I viewed him as an Offensive Center.

Alas...injuries took it's toll. But, he put in the work/ sacrificed parts of his game to be the Center the Warriors needed.

 

[tlance]

See, I think that is the problem. You don't credit the player that HAS won, rather lumping them with all the others that were considered. That is the same situation when kids get trophies in sports leagues whether they've won or not. When that's the case how does the winner stand out?

And, I did NOT put words in your mouth. You said that very thing...the great thing about documentation is it's ability to be used at a later date to refresh one's memory.

I tell you what.

You find where I said The DPOY award was meaningless, and I will illustrate how you misinterpreted or misread my comment just like you did who Sushi. I never said they were Meaningless.

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

I tell you what.

You find where I said The DPOY award was meaningless, and I will illustrate how you misinterpreted or misread my comment just like you did who Sushi. I never said they were Meaningless.

What about his 7 rebounding titles?

His All defensive Team honors?

His All NBA third Team honors?

Sorry, role players don't have those types of resumes.

Sure they do. He did 2 things. Played great defense and was arguably the best rebounder ever. He did very little on the offensive end, hence role player.

 

[LAD]

I tell you what.

You find where I said The DPOY award was meaningless, and I will illustrate how you misinterpreted or misread my comment just like you did who Sushi. I never said they were Meaningless.

Nor did I use the word meaningless. I will say it again. You said just because a player was given accolades doesn't mean they were deserving. Are you telling me that's not what you said?

This is part of my point too.

All too often, posters point to accolades and awards as if they are always given to the most deserving player. Draymond is the best defensive player in the NBA, whether he wins the award or not.

 

[CitySushi]

@LAD Sorry, this was a lot to process, so I'll have to break up my responses to try to best answer all your thoughts.

I think you've conveniently glossed over my question to your "position & challenged shots" claim but, ok I get what you're asking. And yes I think a player can be a great scorer but not a great offensive player.

I haven't glossed over it. What I said in the previous thread, and to which you agreed, that position and challenged shots is immeasurable by most standards. Unfortunately for this, you have to rely on the eye test. I've watched every Warrior game, with very few exceptions since Bogut's arrival (and the upwards of 20 shitty seasons previous to him coming). For me, he's always in a great help defense position. His affect on the defensive end transcends his value individually as a rebounder and shot blocker.

But how does one say he's a great defender when blocks, rebounds & steals are all part of defense-directly linked to him being in position & challenging shots (the intangibles) yet his numbers in those areas are at best, average?

Blocks, rebounds and steals are valuable. I'm not discounting them at all. What I'm saying is that they don't paint a truly accurate picture of a defenders ability. You can be a great shot blocker, but continually out of your team defense concept chasing stats. You can also be a great rebounder but not a significantly good defender (see Tristan Thompson and Kenneth Faried). The Warriors are usually undersized in the paint, which causes Bogut to play the rover on defense. If he has to commit to strong side help from the weakside, it eliminates his positioning for rebounds. This is especially true when the ball is whipped from one end of the court to the other. Many times it's Bogut chasing the guards out of paint. His job is to funnel to help defense and he does it incredibly well. Those things don't show up in the statistics and because he is so good at doing that, it hurts bottom line stats like Rebounding and Blocks.

Assuming we agree that there's a reaction to every action-if he's great at positioning himself shouldn't something tangible come out of that? Otherwise what was the point? Sure you can say he was in good position but what effect did it have? Did he block a shot? Did he rebound a missed shot? Or did he simply make the offensive player go to a different spot on the floor-that could have ended in a score anyway?

Again, how do you measure an immeasurable stat? If he's in a position to divert a guard away from the hoop, it leads to a worse shot. If you're looking for a measurable here is opponents field goal percentage, which if you look is tied with San Antonio for best in the NBA. He doesn't have to block a shot to make the difference. Forcing a contested shot is every bit as good in relative terms to a block. If you're trying to judge a players worth from a Stat sheet, it's impossible to do. You could find no difference in defensive abilities if you try to find them on paper between Bruce Bowen and James Harden. If you can't find the value in a contested shot, altered shot, or creating a more difficult shot, there's really no argument to be made.

If it ended in said player scoring then him just being in position really wasn't effective defense if the end result was a score. But, if he was in position and blocked the shot that turned into an offensive possession for his team, that imo is effective defense. Same thing with a rebound. Those things are effective plays that helped create an offensive possession for his team-the goal of all centers.

Your hypothetical here doesn't really make sense because what you're saying is if Kawhi Leonard forces his man to give up the ball and his teammate hits a 3, then Leonard's defense was pointless. That's just not correct. One player is not responsible for the end result of a teams possession. But if Kawhi steals the ball then that's great defense? I don't know if you're familiar with Football, but I'll use the Cornerback analogy. If you have a team throwing at a cornerback multiple times every game and he ends the season with 8 interceptions, versus a team not even throwing to a cornerback's side and he ends up with 0 interceptions, who is the better defender? The cornerback who didn't have a ball thrown his way, because the defense didn't want to deal with him. They picked on the bad defender, and although his statistics are great, he's the worse defender.

Having said that how can you rate the "intangibles" as a sign of his defensive greatness when without a deeper dive you don't know the end result? Blocks, rebounds & steals all provide an end result to the play without the possibility of question. So how can you say those stats shouldn't be used in that evaluation?

Lastly, intangibles by definition you cannot measure. Blocks, rebounds and steals are all measured, but they don't tell the whole story. I'm not saying to discount them at all, but take them with a grain of salt. There is not a 1-1 correlation on how they define a players defensive ability.

 

[tlance]

You guys are missing my entire point.

If Rodman were the greatest defensive player of all time (he is not) and had very minimal production/role in the offensive end (he did), he would still be a role player. Yet, you keep coming back to how great he is defensively. I have always agreed with that. I have also said that he is overrated as a player, because a guy who is strongly above average on both ends is more valuable than a specialist who is great on one side and does very little on the other. Those accolades do nothing but highlight Rodman's defensive chops, which were top notch. Nobody is arguing with that.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

If Rodman were the greatest defensive player of all time (he is not) and had very minimal production/role in the offensive end (he did), he would still be a role player.

I don't think you know what a role player is.

Dikembe Mutombo, probably one of the top 3 defensive players of all time was less than mediocre on offense but was still an 8 time all-star. All-Stars are not role players.

 

[tlance]

I don't think you know what a role player is.

Dikembe Mutombo, probably one of the top 3 defensive players of all time was less than mediocre on offense but was still an 8 time all-star. All-Stars are not role players.

First off, Mutumbo did a lot more than Rodman offensively. Second, here is the definition of role player:

A player who plays a supporting role on his team, and does it well and willingly. A role player can be a bench player who is a solid performer or a starter who plays a very specific role on his team.

Rodman did a very specific job. He fits this definition. People assume role players are scrubs who play bit roles. That is not what the term means at all. Role players are guys who do 1 or 2 things exceptionally well, but don't do anything else. That is Rodman to a tee.

Rodman's defense was so good that he made 2 all star teams. That still does not mean he is not a role player. He might be the best role player ever, but he was a role player all the same, based on this definition (which I googled and took from sportingcharts.com)

Also, some of the others who people put forth: (Russell, Unseld, Mutumbo) were all the best player on their team for at least a few years. Rodman has never even been the second best on his, yet nobody cares to address that point.

 

[tlance]

But I am not going to turn yet another thread into a Rodman debate. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Rodman has never even been the second best on his, yet nobody cares to address that point.

Because he predominantly played on teams that featured Jordan, Pippen, Joe Dumars and Isiah Thomas. I can name plenty of NBA stars that wouldn't be considered second best with those guys on the team.

But if you have to be picky, he was the second best player on the Spurs.

 

[tlance]

Because he predominantly played on teams that featured Jordan, Pippen, Joe Dumars and Isiah Thomas. I can name plenty of NBA stars that wouldn't be considered second best with those guys on the team.

But if you have to be picky, he was the second best player on the Spurs.

 

[tlance]

Because he predominantly played on teams that featured Jordan, Pippen, Joe Dumars and Isiah Thomas. I can name plenty of NBA stars that wouldn't be considered second best with those guys on the team.

But if you have to be picky, he was the second best player on the Spurs.

Maybe on the '94 team because hey lent Sean Elliot to the Pistons for a year. Elliot was a 2 time all star in his own right, and his appearances came in '93 and '96, while Rodman's came before his time with the Spurs.

Also remember, the Spurs thought so highly of Rodman they traded him straight up for Will Perdue. I doubt any Spurs exec would have called Rodman their second best player in '95.

 

[trojanfan12]

Rodman has never even been the second best on his, yet nobody cares to address that point.

Because it's irrelevant. It's called a big 3 for a reason. The reason is, you have 3 all-star caliber players. Somebody has to be #3 to have a big 3. Dennis was the #3 on the Bulls.

 

[LAD]

@LAD Sorry, this was a lot to process, so I'll have to break up my responses to try to best answer all your thoughts.

I think you've conveniently glossed over my question to your "position & challenged shots" claim but, ok I get what you're asking. And yes I think a player can be a great scorer but not a great offensive player.

I haven't glossed over it. What I said in the previous thread, and to which you agreed, that position and challenged shots is immeasurable by most standards. Unfortunately for this, you have to rely on the eye test. I've watched every Warrior game, with very few exceptions since Bogut's arrival (and the upwards of 20 shitty seasons previous to him coming). For me, he's always in a great help defense position. His affect on the defensive end transcends his value individually as a rebounder and shot blocker.

But how does one say he's a great defender when blocks, rebounds & steals are all part of defense-directly linked to him being in position & challenging shots (the intangibles) yet his numbers in those areas are at best, average?

Blocks, rebounds and steals are valuable. I'm not discounting them at all. What I'm saying is that they don't paint a truly accurate picture of a defenders ability. You can be a great shot blocker, but continually out of your team defense concept chasing stats. You can also be a great rebounder but not a significantly good defender (see Tristan Thompson and Kenneth Faried). The Warriors are usually undersized in the paint, which causes Bogut to play the rover on defense. If he has to commit to strong side help from the weakside, it eliminates his positioning for rebounds. This is especially true when the ball is whipped from one end of the court to the other. Many times it's Bogut chasing the guards out of paint. His job is to funnel to help defense and he does it incredibly well. Those things don't show up in the statistics and because he is so good at doing that, it hurts bottom line stats like Rebounding and Blocks.

Assuming we agree that there's a reaction to every action-if he's great at positioning himself shouldn't something tangible come out of that? Otherwise what was the point? Sure you can say he was in good position but what effect did it have? Did he block a shot? Did he rebound a missed shot? Or did he simply make the offensive player go to a different spot on the floor-that could have ended in a score anyway?

Again, how do you measure an immeasurable stat? If he's in a position to divert a guard away from the hoop, it leads to a worse shot. If you're looking for a measurable here is opponents field goal percentage, which if you look is tied with San Antonio for best in the NBA. He doesn't have to block a shot to make the difference. Forcing a contested shot is every bit as good in relative terms to a block. If you're trying to judge a players worth from a Stat sheet, it's impossible to do. You could find no difference in defensive abilities if you try to find them on paper between Bruce Bowen and James Harden. If you can't find the value in a contested shot, altered shot, or creating a more difficult shot, there's really no argument to be made.

If it ended in said player scoring then him just being in position really wasn't effective defense if the end result was a score. But, if he was in position and blocked the shot that turned into an offensive possession for his team, that imo is effective defense. Same thing with a rebound. Those things are effective plays that helped create an offensive possession for his team-the goal of all centers.

Your hypothetical here doesn't really make sense because what you're saying is if Kawhi Leonard forces his man to give up the ball and his teammate hits a 3, then Leonard's defense was pointless. That's just not correct. One player is not responsible for the end result of a teams possession. But if Kawhi steals the ball then that's great defense? I don't know if you're familiar with Football, but I'll use the Cornerback analogy. If you have a team throwing at a cornerback multiple times every game and he ends the season with 8 interceptions, versus a team not even throwing to a cornerback's side and he ends up with 0 interceptions, who is the better defender? The cornerback who didn't have a ball thrown his way, because the defense didn't want to deal with him. They picked on the bad defender, and although his statistics are great, he's the worse defender.

Having said that how can you rate the "intangibles" as a sign of his defensive greatness when without a deeper dive you don't know the end result? Blocks, rebounds & steals all provide an end result to the play without the possibility of question. So how can you say those stats shouldn't be used in that evaluation?

Lastly, intangibles by definition you cannot measure. Blocks, rebounds and steals are all measured, but they don't tell the whole story. I'm not saying to discount them at all, but take them with a grain of salt. There is not a 1-1 correlation on how they define a players defensive ability.

If intangibles aren't measurable then why base your debate on them solely? All I'm suggesting is we use everything available in rating players-which would include stats. That is why they record stats, yes? I've already said I don't think he's terrible, because I understand he does things that don't show up on the stat sheet. But I have to stop short of saying he's great when I consider his average stats. The reason? Because as the team's center his primary job is to defend which should include getting more than 8 rebounds a game & more than 1 block a game. We don't agree but I would like to see more from a center than that if he wants to be called a great defensive center.

 

[LAD]

You guys are missing my entire point.

If Rodman were the greatest defensive player of all time (he is not) and had very minimal production/role in the offensive end (he did), he would still be a role player. Yet, you keep coming back to how great he is defensively. I have always agreed with that. I have also said that he is overrated as a player, because a guy who is strongly above average on both ends is more valuable than a specialist who is great on one side and does very little on the other. Those accolades do nothing but highlight Rodman's defensive chops, which were top notch. Nobody is arguing with that.

By comparison that's exactly what people are saying about Dirk. But he's considered great. Go figure.

 

[Black Adam]

We have a separate thread for this, that you're well aware of.

In typical fashion, Wiggy opens up a new thread to try to take another shot at Whiteside. The boy's delusional.

if this doesn't qualify for a flat-out butthurt thread I don't know what the hell does...

all those votes for Whiteside did a number on the li'l fella...

 

[Black Adam]

Tristan Thompson is a center???

 

[tlance]

By comparison that's exactly what people are saying about Dirk. But he's considered great. Go figure.

There is some truth to that argument too. just like I thought Steve Nash should have never won an MVP award because of his poor defense.

 

[LAD]

There is some truth to that argument too. just like I thought Steve Nash should have never won an MVP award because of his poor defense.

Finally we agree!
IMO Nash shouldn't have won either times & especially not consecutive seasons.

 

[tlance]

Finally we agree!
IMO Nash shouldn't have won either times & especially not consecutive seasons.

Miracles do happen!