Versatility Is Overrated

[Pointguard]

Stop. LeBron scored a TON of points with his second and third best players missing due to injury.

I don't know what you are getting at but his aggression and versatility meant more than his efficiency. Period. When Lebron had that great efficient series against SA, he would have been better off just going full beast mode and everything (versatility) to win. GS was one of the greatest efficient teams ever. But they they lost, to a hungrier more aggressive team that could make the adaptions to win the game. Hunger and Versatility beat out efficiency.

Draymond has all the spacing in the world and is on the world's most well-balanced team, and he still disappeared during key stretches, namely the games I already mentioned. LeBron scores the ball like an all time great, Draymond scores like a player that gets left open and gets opportunistic buckets.

True, but its really coaching when a versatile player doesn't get used to the max. Curry, is in an idea situation as well. Everybody gets looks on that team. I doubt Curry can carry a team that doesn't pick well (Draymond doesn't get credit for that either) and provide space for him. Draymond was really key to the success of that team and you are under-rating that. Their starting unit had the best defense over the last two years. Draymond anchors the defense. And does all the hard covers. He got more assist, steals, blocks than Curry did in the finals. Had a much better ORTG and DRTG than Curry, EFG%, TS% too in the finals. And you are bringing up TS%? Its obvious you are over-rating TS%.

[juju151111]

I think that could be a byproduct of the team not being all that well constructed, though. The ability to instinctively cater to random players' habits is something a true, true to life floor general can do. Kyrie prob. isn't that, but I saw him make plenty of nice passes during the Olympics, Klay and others just missed a ton of shots, and when it came to crunch time, it was clear that Kyrie was usually the best option against a zone, so people just got out of the way. Just like Klay and Steph's pull up 30 footers, Kyrie bringing the ball past halfcourt to score before a defense is set is just something people have to live with from time to time. Not a bad look considering his agility and ambidexterity around the basket. My biggest gripe with Kyrie during the Olympics was his defense. It honestly didn't look like he was trying, and for the Cavs' sake, I'm kind of happy he wasn't. Still, wasn't pretty to watch, and at times team USA was def. glad they had Lowry, who reminded me why he's actually a very good player*.

If he just slightly gets better defensively it would be crazy. He a great scorer and he was coming off injury too.

[CTbasketball92]

I don't know what you are getting at but his aggression and versatility meant more than his efficiency. Period. When Lebron had that great efficient series against SA, he would have been better off just going full beast mode and everything (versatility) to win. GS was one of the greatest efficient teams ever. But they they lost, to a hungrier more aggressive team that could make the adaptions to win the game. Hunger and Versatility beat out efficiency.

True, but its really coaching when a versatile player doesn't get used to the max. Curry, is in an idea situation as well. Everybody gets looks on that team. I doubt Curry can carry a team that doesn't pick well (Draymond doesn't get credit for that either) and provide space for him. Draymond was really key to the success of that team and you are under-rating that. Their starting unit had the best defense over the last two years. Draymond anchors the defense. And does all the hard covers. He got more assist, steals, blocks than Curry did in the finals. Had a much better ORTG and DRTG than Curry, EFG%, TS% too in the finals. And you are bringing up TS%? Its obvious you are over-rating TS%.

Here's the thing about your first point: Great offense beats great defense, and Draymond's defense was worthless against LeBron and Kyrie Irving and Anthony Davis and James Harden and ... really, any elite player he's played against. With his defense being so worthless, he needed to score to balance it out -- just like how a scorer who allows his defensive assignment to get 30 ppg efficiently needs to score a ton of points to make up for his poor defensive performance. Draymond essentially "failed" in both roles, or at least, didnt do what a true to life all star would/should do. It's because he was forced to get out of his comfort zone and couldnt provide what the Warriors really needed: a really dynamic one-on-one player, or someone who could actually shoot. Klay's limits as a shot-creator were exposed because even though the Cavs were focusing on Curry a lot, he still klanked a bunch of open shots and couldnt get to the line enough or score enough in other ways to be have the impact he should've had against a team that's much less talented than the one he's on. Plus, his defense was useless for the last five games, even though he had fine form. he needed to be a really good all around scorer -- like a Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen other players he's prob. put in the same class as -- to win, but he didnt. Not a fluke, either. He's averaged under 20 ppg for two consecutive finals, despite having the most ideal circumstances imaginable (lol). Draymond actually played well in the finals, but I ... give me PG (ranked above him), Jimmy Butler, Kyrie and other players he's ranked ahead of over him. As for comparing what Draymond did to what Curry did in the finals? yeah, he outplayed him, but curry commanded a borderline-unprecedented amount of attention and allowed him to score. Ok, so Draygod played good defense and passed well. So now we're saying that prime Iggy would be a top 10-15 player? lol, nah bruh. And another thing, you can get a trevor arize (prime) and a solid rim protector to help someone whos's a great scorer but not well-rounded -- but there's nothing you can do for someone with average scoring ability. A complete offensive aresenal-having player is really rare, only, and getting a few solid scorers isn't as good as having a virtuoso scorer.

[Pointguard]

Here's the thing about your first point: Great offense beats great defense,

Hold on. I am willing to bet you that the top five defensive teams win the chip a ton more than the top five offensive teams. As far as teams are concerned this is unquestionable.

and Draymond's defense was worthless against LeBron and Kyrie Irving and Anthony Davis and James Harden and ... really, any elite player he's played against. With his defense being so worthless, he needed to score to balance it out -

and this is his versatility beyond setting the best screens and making the key pass.

just like how a scorer who allows his defensive assignment to get 30 ppg efficiently needs to score a ton of points to make up for his poor defensive performance. Draymond essentially "failed" in both roles, or at least, didnt do what a true to life all star would/should do.

He leads his team in rebounds, blocks, assist, ORTG, DRTG and anchors the defense, and even shoots 3 pointers more accurate than Steph or any other starter, but should hold down and all time great better while Steph was getting murked by Kyrie????

It's because he was forced to get out of his comfort zone and couldnt provide what the Warriors really needed:

Somebody who shoots the three much better than Steph??? They had the best offense in the league the last two years easily but they needed Durant right. After they won 73 games. You aren't making sense. Are you really arguing that the Warrior's didn't have enough offense? This is sick.

a really dynamic one-on-one player, or someone who could actually shoot. Klay's limits as a shot-creator were exposed because even though the Cavs were focusing on Curry a lot, he still klanked a bunch of open shots and couldnt get to the line enough or score enough in other ways to be have the impact he should've had against a team that's much less talented than the one he's on. Plus, his defense was useless for the last five games, even though he had fine form. he needed to be a really good all around scorer -- like a Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen other players he's prob. put in the same class as -- to win, but he didnt. Not a fluke, either. He's averaged under 20 ppg for two consecutive finals, despite having the most ideal circumstances imaginable (lol).

He averaged 10FGA per game. Should Steph had taken less??? They were the best offensive team in the league. They didn't need more scoring. They lost because their guns lost confidence. If Draymond took as many shots as Curry, he would have lead his team in every major statistical category. Why not blame him??? Curry was outplayed by two PG's. But don't LET all time great Lebron outscore Draymond.

Draymond actually played well in the finals, but I ... give me PG (ranked above him), Jimmy Butler, Kyrie and other players he's ranked ahead of over him.

You are aware that OKC played strength and height on the Warrior's right. Only toughness underneath saved them. You saying that PG was needed is really bizarre in a number of ways.

[Pointguard]

I agree, but on team usa he couldn't take control. He definitely had a great playoffs, but defense i would say is the only thing i put Wade above Kyrie.

Wade was one of the few players ever in the league that could score 30ppg primarily off of driving. He outscored prime Dirk by 14 ppg in the final four games of a championship. He's bigger, stronger, smarter and a better passer than Kyrie for beginners. He's better on the fast break. One of the few players ever that could match Lebron while they guarded each other. And he was more versatile than Kyrie. Kyrie could only shoot better and had a fancier handle. I'm thinking I misunderstood something here???

[CTbasketball92]

Hold on. I am willing to bet you that the top five defensive teams win the chip a ton more than the top five offensive teams. As far as teams are concerned this is unquestionable.

and this is his versatility beyond setting the best screens and making the key pass.

He leads his team in rebounds, blocks, assist, ORTG, DRTG and anchors the defense, and even shoots 3 pointers more accurate than Steph or any other starter, but should hold down and all time great better while Steph was getting murked by Kyrie????
Somebody who shoots the three much better than Steph??? They had the best offense in the league the last two years easily but they needed Durant right. After they won 73 games. You aren't making sense. Are you really arguing that the Warrior's didn't have enough offense? This is sick.

He averaged 10FGA per game. Should Steph had taken less??? They were the best offensive team in the league. They didn't need more scoring. They lost because their guns lost confidence. If Draymond took as many shots as Curry, he would have lead his team in every major statistical category. Why not blame him??? Curry was outplayed by two PG's. But don't LET all time great Lebron outscore Draymond.



You are aware that OKC played strength and height on the Warrior's right. Only toughness underneath saved them. You saying that PG was needed is really bizarre in a number of ways.

You can get defensive role players pretty readily, is one of my points You can't get a great scorer just anywhere. Draymond wasn't the reason the warriors lost, but he did disappear in three straight elimination games (3, 4, 6 -- 5 he was suspended cuz' he's a dummy), which is something we'd all bash actually elite* players for if they ended up losing the series, especially when they're on the much better team. I honest to god think Prime Iggy would be put into just as high regard as Draymond if he were on the warriors instead. Elite defense would get more attention and he passed very well and could score a bit better from what I could tell. No version of Iggy is better than top 25 in the league at best.

As far as shot attempts go, I went on a tangent and was talking about Klay. Might as well get two birds with one stone (or, at least try to). Klay's vaunted "two-way play" and status as someone considered one of the "best two way players in the game" were put up to the test. Truth is, he's a great shooter (GOAT level) with solid defense, and not much more.

As for the shooting, I just meant that Klay's jumper just disappeared. Warriors really just needed one of their all stars to score without a three pointer.

As for Paul George (PG), yeah, I have no doubts the Warriors win the series and PG takes home the FMVP if he's there instead of Draygod. PG would've gotten real buckets off shots and FT attempts he got on his own, which is really what GSW needed. I think Jimmy Butler would've too, to be honest. I think almost everyone on GSW is pretty damn overrated

[CTbasketball92]

Wade was one of the few players ever in the league that could score 30ppg primarily off of driving. He outscored prime Dirk by 14 ppg in the final four games of a championship. He's bigger, stronger, smarter and a better passer than Kyrie for beginners. He's better on the fast break. One of the few players ever that could match Lebron while they guarded each other. And he was more versatile than Kyrie. Kyrie could only shoot better and had a fancier handle. I'm thinking I misunderstood something here???

I think you and everyone else missed the part where I said that it was during this year's playoffs that Kyrie played as well as 2011 Dwade, and he did it against a team that was probably worse than this year's warriors. Again, it's hard not to make this comparison in very similar roles:

Dwade 2011 playoffs: 24.5 ppg on 49/27/77 splits to go along with 7 rebounds 4.4 assists, 1.3 blks 1.6 steals.

Kyrie 2016 playoffs = 25.2 ppg on 48/44/88 splits to go along with 4.7 assists, 3 rebounds (pedestrian), 1.7 steals, .6 blocks and 2.3 turnovers despite having an even higher usage rate (28.9) than Dwade (26.9).

Kyrie had a 24.7 PER and DWade had a 26.4 PER. Kyrie's massive advantage in 3point shooting and freethrow percentages and lower turnover rates make it not as far a part. Either way, it's clear that Kyrie had a playoff run that easily rivals that of almost any point guard in the last 10-15 years (especially considering games played), so me saying he was DWade over a 21 game sample while he also had a higher usage rate and probably played a better finals team than the 2011 mavericks (or at least not worse*), is not a stretch AT ALL. It was easily a superstar playoff run, and when you consider how long he maintained his numbers, you could argue he was the second best player in the whole postseason, with only LeBron doing better for sure.

In having this past year's playoff run with such a high usage rate, it's clear that Kyrie has more sustained playoff success than pretty much every single player considered in his tier; I say there's a reason for that: he's just better than them, or if not "better" his maximum impact for a team extremely high.

[Smoke117]

Kyrie as good as 2011 Wade in this past playoffs? Except for the fact that he's not even close as a defender or playmaker, I guess?

[CTbasketball92]

Kyrie as good as 2011 Wade in this past playoffs? Except for the fact that he's not even close as a defender or playmaker, I guess?

I addressed the defense part. he wasn't as good of a defender, but he scored even more points more efficiently while still getting 1.6 steals a game and his usage rate was a bit higher. Also, even though I wouldn't say Kyrie is the playmaker DWade was during that run, he did average 4.7 assists to Dwade's 4.4, while also averaging less turnovers and playing fewer minutes. The point is, it's arguable, and not many players in the league have runs that can be mentioned in the same breath as DWade's 2011 run.

[El Gato Negro]

His defense is overrated as well. He gets away with more holding and hacking not to mention kicking than any player I have ever seen. Will be interesting to see if he gets the same pass from the refs now that gs has been labeled the villains instead of the golden child.

[GimmeThat]

generally, if you are not > than your opponent, you are not versatile

in the case you are less than your opponent and am versatile? capitalization on mismatch comes to mind, which is variance.

[iamgine]

In a vaccuum, he's definitely not as good as Klay Thompson, and top 15 players don't score in single digits in consecutive games during the playoffs, especially when they're still getting fried on defense. Put Draymond on a bad team, and he fails to lead that squad anywhere near the playoffs, essentially making him no better than the volume scorer -- and isn't that how most of you or Bball twitter evaluates a player's worth? For all of his great defense, LeBron still lit him tf up in the finals, especially after he talked all that s**t before game 6. Hey Draymond? Why don't you get an efficient 20+ points per game instead, since Steph. and Klay take all of the attention off you and you're wide open for all of your shots. Put PG on GSW instead of Draygod, there's no chance that GSW loses.

Draymond is rated highly because of his uniqueness. He's an elite defender who can defend multiple positions and a big who can dribble and pass on a high level. This allows his team to execute things on both sides that they otherwise can't.

Is Klay the better player? Sure. But it might be easier to replace a Klay than a Draymond. For example, Warriors would still be very lethal if Shaun Livingston starts instead of Klay, but I'm not sure they would be as lethal if they put a Shaun Livingston level forward on Draymond's place.

[bizil]

When it comes to a Draymond, he's really THE GUY who enables Golden State to play the way they do in many aspects. Curry has been their best player BY FAR, but Dray is the KEY COG when it comes to their small ball lineups. He's one of those RARE GUYS who can damn near defend every position. On the other end, he's not a great scorer, BUT MOST pure PF's and C's.can't defend him on the perimeter. If u put most SF's on him, he's too physical and will post them up. And after Bron, he's likely the best passing forward in the league.

So for a particular team, versatility is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! I put more stock in that than these funny ass formulas, ratios, etc. BUT WHEN comparing the best players up against each other, versatility AT THAT POINT can become overrated! Because as great as Draymond is, he's not a guy who carry a team scoring night after night. THAT'S the most important aspect in basketball. Other than a Bill Russell or Unseld, VIRTUALLY every MVP of the NBA was an alpha dog level scorer. That's for a REASON!!

SO OBVIOUSLY, u can't put Dray on the level of players who are great scorers AND have great versatility in one. BUT Dray certainly is one of the top 15-20 players in the world at this point. I think top ten is stretching it. If he was TRULY top 10 material, he would have gotten more minutes and had more impact on the WATERED DOWN Olympic team.

[warriorfan]

It is all circumstantial, some teams need versatility, some teams need players that dominate totally in one aspect. It all comes down to the composite of players and what the team needs more. As the poster above put it, Draymond's versatility works very well with a team with very unique assets (Splash Brothers + Iguodala) such as Golden State, with other teams not as much.

[ILLsmak]

SI and ESPN rank Draymond Green too high on their lists. Being "versatile" isn't inherently better than being a great volume scorer, and on teams without other stars, they give you about the same value at BEST. I'd say that it only matches or exceeds being a great scorer when that person also scores at a perennial All Star level. LeBron scores at a superstar level while also doing everything Draymond does (obv. at a higher level, when fully engaged, not that anyone ever makes this comparison). Paul George is a 6'9" small forward who can score like a perennial all star and defend the best player every night and initiate an offense. He isn't dependent on other players, when things get tough, he can flatout score at will, even if it's inefficiently (like 53 TS%). Draymond is an incredibly useful role player, but if he's being ranked on how he'd perform in a vacuum, being anywhere in the top 15 is ridiculous.

By extension, Klay Thompson's two way play isn't as valuable as Harden's ability to score somewhat efficiently seemingly no matter what while also running an offense. Not sure how many ISH argued that Klay was better, but again, if GSW has Harden instead of Klay, they win the finals handily.

Being able to perform your role is more important than versatility, and a really good role player should be very high on the list. Understanding your role. Rarely would I say Dray does anything we are like woah, he could do that? But he has a large role and performs it well. He doesn't step outside of that role.

Think of it this way: if you have 5 players in the NBA who can actually be a superstar... then what do you want after that... the guy who is really, really close but not a superstar or the guy who is the best role player to compliment those superstars. To me, I take the latter.

I only use the vacuum (imagine said player on a team with only role players and see who performs better) situation when I am comparing which superstar has more impact, and even that is total speculation.

That's also why Klay is probably better than Harden... Harden is a fringe guy whose impact would lessen by being on a championship team, where as Klay would thrive and score in that 2nd option role.

GSW is a well built team; maybe lacking bigs now, but otherwise...

-Smak