2020 Historical Draft: ECF...#1 Boston vs #2 Milwaukee

[Roy H.]

1.  Purely offensive teams generally don't win titles
I think it's fair to say that Boston has a great offense, and a pretty poor defense.  I'd rank them as the best offense in the HBL (Historic Basketball League), and probably in the bottom 25% defensively.  Do teams like that win?

How often is a team anchored by a DPOY not a good defensive team?  Who are the bad defenders on Boston besides Nash?  I see several players I consider above average defenders in addition to their DPOY.

I think it's a false narrative that Boston will be a bad defensive team.  Obviously Nash is a weakness, but you can have a terrible defender at PG and still be a good defensive team like Boston in '16 (#4) with Isaiah.

Pau was pretty poor, Durant isn't very good, Houston isn't very good.  Even Marc Gasol is slow-footed.  In this league Boston is in the bottom quadrant in terms of team defenses.

Well I guess it's going to be a huge difference of opinion.  Durant and Pau are good defenders (at least above average).  Both of those players got All-D votes in the years that were selected, had positive DBPM numbers, and a positive difference between ORtg and DRtg.  Add in Sheed, Stockton, Nene, all good individual + team defenders.  (And I want to say Granger could be a good defensive player, I remember him playing LeBron very well in the playoffs in '12, but I struggle to find anything to support that other than my memory).

I don't see your team playing a fast enough pace to be a problem for "slow footed" Marc Gasol, who played a big part in eliminating Giannis last year.  He also held his own against many quick footed Western Conference studs in his years in Memphis.  It's not like we're talking about Roy Hibbert here.  Plus Mourning was a strong, half court guy, not a mismatch for Marc Gasol.

And I actually think in a league like this, where individuals are largely drafted on their individual rather than team strengths (and usually with an emphasis on scoring/shooting), Boston actually has a pretty good team defense.  A lot of length and size in that front court that belongs to good defenders.

I should probably just agree to disagree, as I'm not sure that you're convinceable.  However, there's nothing else better to do during "stay at home" time. 

Here's how Boston stacks up against the other 13 teams in the league:

BOSTON - Gasol / Gasol / Durant / Houston / Nash

Nash is a terrible defender.  Houston is bad.  Durant has been shockingly bad over the past three seasons.  Pau is average at best, and is playing out of position.

PHILADELPHIA - Gobert / Milsap / Lebron / Allen / Billups

Four very good defenders, one bad one


TORONTO - Robinson / KG / Vince / Middleton / Lowry

Four very good to elite defenders, one below average one


MILWAUKEE - Mourning / Malone / Giannis / Ginobili / Conley

Five very good to elite defenders

MIAMI - D12 / Kirilenko / Butler / Roy / CP3

Four very good to elite defenders, one average to below average one (Roy)

INDIANA- Embiid / Dirk / Hayward / Oladipo / Parker

This one might be up for debate, but at worst it's two very good defenders, two average ones, and one poor one

BROOKLYN - Yao / Davis / Marion / McGrady / Miller

Two very good to elite defenders, two good ones, one average one

LOS ANGELES LAKERS - Jokic / Webber / MWP / Bryant / Lillard

Jokic is very poor, Webber was below average.  MWP and Bryant ranged from very good to elite.  Lillard is a mixed bag, going from terrible early in his career to at least average recently.

LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS - Noah / Brand / Hill / Redd / Curry

Three very strong defenders up from, a weak defensive back court

DENVER - Duncan / Green / Carmelo / Hamilton / Payton

Four good to elite defenders, one poor one

UTAH -- Shaq / Horford / Peja / Miller / Kidd

Three very good defenders, two very weak ones

DALLAS - Mutumbo / Aldridge / Kawhi / Thompson / Doncic

One poor defender, three excellent ones, one average to above-average

HOUSTON -- Bosh / Amare / Jones / Harden / Wade

Two poor defenders, two very good ones, one average to above-average one

OKC -- Wallace / JO / Pierce / George / Westbrook

When Westbrook is engaged (perhaps not in 2018), five very good to elite defenders

Boston is what, at best 12th out of 14 teams?  And it's only got one defender who can be considered elite?  I just don't see how that constitutes a good defense.

[Who]

Sorry, I don't have a whole pile to say. I spent most of my CB day catching up with all that was said in the How's My Team Look thread.

Milwaukee are a fantastic team. They have a lot in common with my own team in terms of being able to play any type of lineup or style of play. So strategy not so much. Nothing particular. More of the same really.

I built this Boston team with teamwork a heavy focus. We have really strong team passing. Our big men do a great job of facilitating the offense to help out our gifted playmaking PGs. We loaded up on shooters to spread out the court to give Nash & Durant room to work and to give our bigs room to operate.

We have the most talented scorer of this generation in Kevin Durant and one of the most gifted offensive maestros of this generation in Steve Nash. Nash is on record saying that he regrets not shooting more 3s when he played and that he would shoot more today if he was playing in today's league. These two combine to make a huge offensive threat and they have the supporting cast around them to facilitate that (shooting, finishing, passing, decision making).

Pau Gasol and Marc Gasol give us a twin tower effect on both ends of the court. They had great success and showed great chemistry playing together in the Spanish National team.

We have a deep bench that supports the starters.


------------------------------

A few things I'd note about Milwaukee:

(1) Karl Malone had one of the biggest drop offs in scoring performances from regular season to postseason in league history (for example, 59% TS% to 51.7% TS% 1996-2000 during Jazz's most successful playoff runs).

(2a) Alonzo Mourning has a history of coming up short in big playoff games (choking against the Bulls and disappointing against the Knicks) because he gets too worked up emotionally and makes mental errors. And he is limited passer (why his teams offenses were so easy to disrupt in postseason).

(2b) Alonzo Mourning like other shot-blockers of his era had his defensive impact boosted by playing in an era that had far fewer three pointers, pick and rolls or spread offenses. He got to camp out in the paint and challenge drivers all game long. Not the case in today's league. His defensive impact is lessened here.

(3a) Giannis has a short playoff resume highlighted by his weakness in making both perimeter and midrange jump-shots.

(3b) Giannis is a phenomenal team defender but do you really want to be leaving Kevin Durant open?

(4) Mike Conley has a history of struggling to score / shoot the ball effectively in the postseason (51.7% TS% career playoffs). Derrick Rose also has struggled to score effectively in the postseason due to his limitations as a jump-shooter.

(5) Karl Malone is older by 2000. He runs the floor well but he doesn't move as well laterally or changing directions on defense. His interior defense is still strong due to his physical strength and smarts. That was enough (to still be a top defender) in his era. Not in this one. In this one he has to defend PnRs and play out on the perimeter.


So where does the reliable scoring come from?


Outside of Ginobili I mean. That guy is a killer. I sincerely fear him.


--------

Okay, that's it for me. I've gotta go.

Thank you very much to everyone who voted my team top of the East / League during the regular season. I knew some people loved the makeup of the team but I thought there was a decent few who really did not like my team's defense. So that was a nice surprise today. Thank you.

[Donoghus]

Well, things have gotten very interesting in this matchup.

[Roy H.]

5.  What about the bench?

I think both teams did a pretty good job building their benches. 

Rasheed Wallace (2002-03)
Danny Granger (2008-09)
John Stockton (1999-2000)
Nene Hilario (2010-11)
Richard Jefferson (2005-06)
Goran Dragic (2013-14)
Jason Richardson (2007-08)
Jaren Jackson Jr. (2019-20)
Latrell Sprewell (1999-2000)

Derrick Rose  (2010-11)
Jayson Tatum  (2019-20)
Serge Ibaka (2013-14)
J.J. Redick  (2015-16)
Andrew Bogut  (2009-10)
Caron Butler (2007-08)
Brad Miller  (2003-04)
Eric Gordon  (2017-18)
Terrell Brandon  (1999-00)

I think it's a very large advantage to have an MVP coming off the bench.  As I noted during my end-of-season writeup, my vision includes having at least one of Giannis and Rose in the game at all times.  It allows us to run an attacking offense predicated around physical mismatches.

Here, Rose's advantage is particularly large.  Rose is a 200 missile of a player.  He's an uber-athlete, strong, agile and fast.  He's being defended off the bench by a shorter, lighter, 38 year old John Stockton who had markedly declined on defense by that stage of his career.  The third PG is Dragic, another smaller, less physical defender.  Rose would have a major advantage here.  I don't feel as though Who has a lot of defenders who can slide over from SG to pick up Rose, either. 

Obviously, Rose isn't alone.  We are witnessing the birth of a superstar in Jayson Tatum.  He's an elite defender, and has presumptively ended the season averaging 24 / 7 on excellent shooting splits.  But did you notice when he figured things out?  His March stats put him in Giannis / Durant territory:  30.7 points / 7.9 rebounds / 3.2 assists on a ridiculous 48.1% 3PT% / .637 TS%.  I'm just not sure who on Who's team will stop him.

We've got Redick in a season where he scored 16+ ppg and shot 47.5% 3PT%.  Eric Gordon in a 6MOY capacity.  Caron Butler the All-Star.  And three all-star big men who all played excellent defense. 

I like Who's bench, but I think it's maybe a bit redundant.  I'm not scared of its defensive potential except for Rasheed.  The other thing I prefer about Milwaukee is that I think our bench players fit in very well with our starters, offering the ability to run different lineups.  For instance, we can go small, moving Giannis to PF with Ibaka playing the role of stretch center like he did during Toronto's championship season.  I don't think Who has quite the versatility to match up with that.

6.  Any rebuttal to Who's post?

I'm a little confused by this point:

Karl Malone had one of the biggest drop offs in scoring performances from regular season to postseason in league history

2000 Regular Season:  25.5 points, .510 eFG%, .582 TS%

2000 Playoffs:  27.2 points, .525 eFG%, .584 TS%

Malone's scoring average and efficiency both went up in the post-season.

I don't understand the similar comments about Mourning "choking", etc.  He averaged 22 / 10 in the playoffs.  In Game 7 against the Knicks, he scored 29 points, had 13 rebounds, 5 blocks, and shot 60%.  Similarly, as noted above, Mike Conley played at an All-NBA level in the playoffs.

And, I know Who doesn't have a lot to say, but I do want to point this out:

I have Bucks as #1 team as is.

[RPGenerate]

I will say that I had Milwaukee lower than my rankings than I think many people had them, because I think that frontcourt will have some problems offensively. The three players are all awesome talents, but I think they step on each other's toes when together. For instance, how does Giannis play when instead of a 4-out offense, he has to deal with two other big men who also primarily feast in the paint? Is his perimeter game able to accomodate for that? Does Mourning's offensive game have greatly diminishing returns when he has to concede the paint to Malone and Giannis all the time?

[gouki88]

Man, this one is tough. These were my top 2 teams. The Bucks have somewhat preposterous length, strength and inside scoring, but lack some floor spacing with their best players, while Boston have amazing passing and shooting, yet lack some defence, especially once you’re past the starting lineup. Hmm....

[bdm860]

Boston is what, at best 12th out of 14 teams?  And it's only got one defender who can be considered elite?  I just don't see how that constitutes a good defense.

It's not about functioning as an individual, it's about functioning as a team.

Houston '00 was on the 6th best D (with deep bench Sprewell).
Pau  '10 was on the 4th best D.
Durant '17 was on the 2nd best D.
Marc '13 was on the 2nd best D.

Obviously those guys (except for Marc) aren't the driving force behind the teams defensive success, but they are part of it.

I see Boston functioning as a cohesive unit, so I think that will contribute to good team defense (helps that I consider Durant/Pau as above average and Marc as great, disagreeing on that foundation though, we obviously won't see eye to eye).

First example (which is full of holes ha) is '12 and '13 Lakers.  Lakers in '12 were 13th in D.  Traded Bynum for a much better defensive player in Dwight Howard, to go along with once elite but aging defenders in Artest and Bryant.  Lakers then finish 20th in D.  Just adding a great defender to a team somehow made the defense worse (and had nothing to do with Nash/Pau also being on that team lol, don't use that against me, like I said full of holes haha).   They didn't function well as a team, so the D suffered despite some great defenders.

2nd example.  '19 and '20 Utah.  '19 Utah is the 2nd best D.  They swap out a terrible defender in Rubio for a great defender in Conley.  They should be a top defensive team now, right?  No they go to 11th.  They notably struggled with chemistry and cohesion and their D suffered for it.

3rd example, would be '18, '19, '20 Boston.  They finished 1st in D in '18, everyone thought they were bringing a better team back in '19 and finsihed 7th in D, then most thought they were going to take a step back in '20 with huge holes down low but improved D back up to 4th.  Team functions well in '18 and '20 and the D is good.  Team functions bad in '19 and the D gets worse.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that overall team D correlates with team chemistry.

With these drafts, I'm big on chemistry, I think of every time Team USA loses in international competition (like '02, '04, '06, '19).  Those teams always looked stacked ('19 less so), full of offensive firepower and great defenders.  But they don't function well for whatever reason on both ends.  This is part of what I thinks lifts this Boston team above some of its peers with better individual defenders (plus I think Durant/Pau can hang on D with some of the guys you listed as average/above average/very good).

A big part is, I think Who's Boston will function well together, which will lift their team defense above the sum of their parts (plus I think Durant/Pau are above average and wrongly stereotyped, Marc is great, pluss Sheed, Nene, Stockton even at 37, Sprewell are all good defenders).

[Roy H.]

Boston is what, at best 12th out of 14 teams?  And it's only got one defender who can be considered elite?  I just don't see how that constitutes a good defense.

It's not about functioning as an individual, it's about functioning as a team.

Houston '00 was on the 6th best D (with deep bench Sprewell).
Pau  '10 was on the 4th best D.
Durant '17 was on the 2nd best D.
Marc '13 was on the 2nd best D.

Obviously those guys (except for Marc) aren't the driving force behind the teams defensive success, but they are part of it.

I see Boston functioning as a cohesive unit, so I think that will contribute to good team defense (helps that I consider Durant/Pau as above average and Marc as great, disagreeing on that foundation though, we obviously won't see eye to eye).

First example (which is full of holes ha) is '12 and '13 Lakers.  Lakers in '12 were 13th in D.  Traded Bynum for a much better defensive player in Dwight Howard, to go along with once elite but aging defenders in Artest and Bryant.  Lakers then finish 20th in D.  Just adding a great defender to a team somehow made the defense worse (and had nothing to do with Nash/Pau also being on that team lol, don't use that against me, like I said full of holes haha).   They didn't function well as a team, so the D suffered despite some great defenders.

2nd example.  '19 and '20 Utah.  '19 Utah is the 2nd best D.  They swap out a terrible defender in Rubio for a great defender in Conley.  They should be a top defensive team now, right?  No they go to 11th.  They notably struggled with chemistry and cohesion and their D suffered for it.

3rd example, would be '18, '19, '20 Boston.  They finished 1st in D in '18, everyone thought they were bringing a better team back in '19 and finsihed 7th in D, then most thought they were going to take a step back in '20 with huge holes down low but improved D back up to 4th.  Team functions well in '18 and '20 and the D is good.  Team functions bad in '19 and the D gets worse.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that overall team D correlates with team chemistry.

With these drafts, I'm big on chemistry, I think of every time Team USA loses in international competition (like '02, '04, '06, '19).  Those teams always looked stacked ('19 less so), full of offensive firepower and great defenders.  But they don't function well for whatever reason on both ends.  This is part of what I thinks lifts this Boston team above some of its peers with better individual defenders (plus I think Durant/Pau can hang on D with some of the guys you listed as average/above average/very good).

A big part is, I think Who's Boston will function well together, which will lift their team defense above the sum of their parts (plus I think Durant/Pau are above average and wrongly stereotyped, Marc is great, pluss Sheed, Nene, Stockton even at 37, Sprewell are all good defenders).

I'm not really seeing a few of your points.

Honestly, your argument seems to be "the defense will function well because I think it would".

There's nothing to suggest that Steve Nash is a good team defender, or that Allan Houston is a good defender, or that Pau Gasol is a good defender at PF.  Statistically, Kevin Durant has been a terrible defender by multiple metrics.  I just don't see how you can take four below average defenders and say "yeah, but synergy".  I don't think there's any precedent for that in NBA history. 

I don't think it's a stretch to say that overall team D correlates with team chemistry.

Defense requires two things:  buy in, and talent.  Without the talent (which Nash, for instance, doesn't possess) there won't be a good defense, no matter the effort or chemistry.

Also, randomly, what gives you the impression that Ricky Rubio is a terrible defender?

[KGs Knee]

I know it isn't necessarily something Boston has really dioscussed, but I think Sheed would end up being on the court more than Pau in this series.  Sheed was an excellent defender when he was engaged.  I suspect he'd competently be able to defend any of 'Zo, Malone, or Giannis.

Here's what at least one media type thought:

There were very few things Wallace couldn’t do on a basketball court. At 6’11, 230 with exceptionally quick feet and a rumored 7’4 wingspan, he was a defensive prototype. He had the strength to battle the best low-post scorers on the blocks, the quickness to move in space and the length to protect the rim. He had all the tools on the offensive side of the floor too: an excellent post game, complete with a turnaround jumper that was essentially indefensible and the ability to stretch the floor out to the three-point line. His versatility on both sides of the ball and his understanding of the game made him the perfect teammate, capable of playing any role his team needed.

[Roy H.]

Man, this one is tough. These were my top 2 teams. The Bucks have somewhat preposterous length, strength and inside scoring, but lack some floor spacing with their best players, while Boston have amazing passing and shooting, yet lack some defence, especially once you’re past the starting lineup. Hmm....

I think the spacing argument is overstated, to be honest.

Think about the entire history of basketball.  Extreme spacing has only been a thing for, what, five seasons or so?  How did guys like Lebron score before then?  Was the lane too clogged?  No.  Elite scorers score. 

Let's go way back to 2008, the Celtics championship team.  To hear critics these days (not saying that you're one), that team shouldn't be able to succeed.  You've got a low-post defensive center, a PF that can't hit from three, two nice outside shooting options who combined for 4.3 threes per game, and a PG who defenders could routinely sag off.

Did that team have spacing?  Nope.  At least, they certainly had less than the Bucks here.  Yet, they put up 110 points per 100 possessions. 

And an even more striking example:  Lebron's fellow starters in the 2008 playoffs were Ben Wallace, Ilgauskas, Delonte and Wally.  That supporting cast provided 2.9 3PTs per game (for perspective, Mike Conley adds 2.5 3PTs himself).  Terrible spacing, right?  Yet, in the playoffs Lebron averaged 28 ppg, got to the line 12+ times per contest, and very nearly beat one of the best defensive teams of all time. 

How is that possible?  Because great players don't need spacing to be special.  Lebron dominated without it.  Larry Bird and Magic played against "clogged lanes" every game of their careers.  So did Michael Jordan (and those aforementioned guys also dealt with hand checking). 

The Cavs have shooters galore if they need to bring them in, but there's no precedent in NBA history to say that a 2-time MVP with .600 TS% efficiency would struggle with "only" two high volume 3PT shooters on the roster.  And that's not even touching upon the fact that Malone and Mourning both were, in fact, floor spacers out to about 20+ feet, and that both very likely could have added 3PT shots.  (I mean, if Al Horford, Brook Lopez and Boogie Cousins can all become good 3PT shooters, is there any reason to think that Karl Malone -- an excellent jump shooter -- wouldn't have?)

It's weird that the "pace and space" era has become so prevalent that it's now seen as necessary to win.  Give me a team full of guys who shoot around .600 TS% (like the Bucks), and they'll win regardless.

[Roy H.]

I will say that I had Milwaukee lower than my rankings than I think many people had them, because I think that frontcourt will have some problems offensively. The three players are all awesome talents, but I think they step on each other's toes when together. For instance, how does Giannis play when instead of a 4-out offense, he has to deal with two other big men who also primarily feast in the paint? Is his perimeter game able to accomodate for that? Does Mourning's offensive game have greatly diminishing returns when he has to concede the paint to Malone and Giannis all the time?

Please see above.

For instance, how does Giannis play when instead of a 4-out offense, he has to deal with two other big men who also primarily feast in the paint?

Numbers aren't available for all of Malone's career, but about 60% of his offense came outside of 10 feet.  About 40% of Alonzo's did, post-injury when he was a lesser scorer.  My expectation is that he was closer to a 50/50 split in his prime, when he really had the face-up jumper working.

As for Giannis, he's spent large chunks of time playing next to Greg Monroe and John Henson.  Giannis is Giannis.  He's been amazingly efficient and amazingly successful, no matter who his teammates are, no matter what the spacing situation is, and no matter whether he is playing PG, SG, SF or PF.

Does Mourning's offensive game have greatly diminishing returns when he has to concede the paint to Malone and Giannis all the time?

See above, but also, the list of great slasher / big man combinations in NBA history is a long one.  Did Shaq affect Kobe's ability to get to the line or to score inside?  Did Shaq have diminishing returns playing next to Kobe?  Great players score. 

Or, look at perhaps the most successful team of the era, the Spurs.  They had Duncan (who provided equal or less space than Malone), a plethora of centers without range, and a mediocre outside shooter in Tony Parker.  Were Parker and Ginobili hampered by the lack of spacing from the big men?  I never saw it that way.

[gouki88]

Man, this one is tough. These were my top 2 teams. The Bucks have somewhat preposterous length, strength and inside scoring, but lack some floor spacing with their best players, while Boston have amazing passing and shooting, yet lack some defence, especially once you’re past the starting lineup. Hmm....

I think the spacing argument is overstated, to be honest.

Think about the entire history of basketball.  Extreme spacing has only been a thing for, what, five seasons or so?  How did guys like Lebron score before then?  Was the lane too clogged?  No.  Elite scorers score. 

Let's go way back to 2008, the Celtics championship team.  To hear critics these days (not saying that you're one), that team shouldn't be able to succeed.  You've got a low-post defensive center, a PF that can't hit from three, two nice outside shooting options who combined for 4.3 threes per game, and a PG who defenders could routinely sag off.

Did that team have spacing?  Nope.  At least, they certainly had less than the Bucks here.  Yet, they put up 110 points per 100 possessions. 

And an even more striking example:  Lebron's fellow starters in the 2008 playoffs were Ben Wallace, Ilgauskas, Delonte and Wally.  That supporting cast provided 2.9 3PTs per game (for perspective, Mike Conley adds 2.5 3PTs himself).  Terrible spacing, right?  Yet, in the playoffs Lebron averaged 28 ppg, got to the line 12+ times per contest, and very nearly beat one of the best defensive teams of all time. 

How is that possible?  Because great players don't need spacing to be special.  Lebron dominated without it.  Larry Bird and Magic played against "clogged lanes" every game of their careers.  So did Michael Jordan (and those aforementioned guys also dealt with hand checking). 

The Cavs have shooters galore if they need to bring them in, but there's no precedent in NBA history to say that a 2-time MVP with .600 TS% efficiency would struggle with "only" two high volume 3PT shooters on the roster.  And that's not even touching upon the fact that Malone and Mourning both were, in fact, floor spacers out to about 20+ feet, and that both very likely could have added 3PT shots.  (I mean, if Al Horford, Brook Lopez and Boogie Cousins can all become good 3PT shooters, is there any reason to think that Karl Malone -- an excellent jump shooter -- wouldn't have?)

It's weird that the "pace and space" era has become so prevalent that it's now seen as necessary to win.  Give me a team full of guys who shoot around .600 TS% (like the Bucks), and they'll win regardless.

Oh yeah, don’t get me wrong, I think it is overrated. There’s a reason I had you #1. It’s not even like you don’t have any shooters either, Manu & Conley make an elite shooting threat. It’s just my only (very small) qualm with your team, and I guess somewhat highlighted by Who starting two approximate 50/40/90 guys.

I think a team that relies upon imposing itself inside is actually a fun, refreshing way to go about it in a draft that saw the greatest emphasis in 3P shooting.

Maybe I’ll try and do that next draft

[action781]

Let's go way back to 2008, the Celtics championship team.  To hear critics these days (not saying that you're one), that team shouldn't be able to succeed.  You've got a low-post defensive center, a PF that can't hit from three, two nice outside shooting options who combined for 4.3 threes per game, and a PG who defenders could routinely sag off.

Did that team have spacing?  Nope.  At least, they certainly had less than the Bucks here.  Yet, they put up 110 points per 100 possessions. 

"a low post defensive center", "a PF that can't hit from three", "two nice outside shooting options who combined for 4.3 4.6 threes a game" and "a PG SF who defenders could routinely sag off." .... Roy this sounds a lot like your team!  That's a clever, creative and subtle way to compare your team to the 2008 Celtics!

[Somebody]

One quibble on Durant's defence:
Who picked Durant's 2017 season, which had him posting a 0.4 DRAPM according to Engelmann's NPI RAPM with playoff data. To me his defence was similar to his 2016 season, which had him posting a 1.03 DRAPM. Durant's defensive metrics were generally brought down due to the quality of the guys playing in his position: Iguodala was his backup at SF and he'd be "backing up" Draymond when GSW went small. RAPM adjusts for a ton of factors, but it can't do much when your raw lineup data doesn't look pretty + your play-by-play data gets outshone by your teammates in similar positoins.

So combining those numbers as well as the context they came from with the eye test, which has Durant as a strong man defender against perimeter players with some switchability and rim protection would land him as a positive defender. Not a great defender (some posters were anointing him as an excellent defensive piece earlier on, which baffled me), but he does give positive value on the defensive end.

I think Who's team would fare well against the Bucks if they started Sheed and J-Rich at PF and SG respectively. Tight series either way though.

[Who]

I know it isn't necessarily something Boston has really dioscussed, but I think Sheed would end up being on the court more than Pau in this series.  Sheed was an excellent defender when he was engaged.  I suspect he'd competently be able to defend any of 'Zo, Malone, or Giannis.

Here's what at least one media type thought:

There were very few things Wallace couldn’t do on a basketball court. At 6’11, 230 with exceptionally quick feet and a rumored 7’4 wingspan, he was a defensive prototype. He had the strength to battle the best low-post scorers on the blocks, the quickness to move in space and the length to protect the rim. He had all the tools on the offensive side of the floor too: an excellent post game, complete with a turnaround jumper that was essentially indefensible and the ability to stretch the floor out to the three-point line. His versatility on both sides of the ball and his understanding of the game made him the perfect teammate, capable of playing any role his team needed.

Oh yeah, Sheed is going to be on the court a ton. He comes off the bench but really he is the team's 5th starter. He'll be playing similar minutes to Pau Gasol & Marc Gasol. Ideally we want all three of those guys up around 30mpg.

Last night I was thinking how much I like the way Sheed can matchup with Giannis at PF when/if Milwaukee goes smaller. I agree Sheed can also defend any of the Bucks other big men.

I have no problem with Pau ending up on the bench in favour of Sheed if that is how things play out. That is what I expected to happen when we played against Dirk and Embiid. Marc Gasol to defend Embiid and Sheed to defend Dirk. So no issue there.

I do not expect it to be the case here though. I expect minutes to be similar among my 3 main bigs with Pau getting maybe slightly more than the other two. However, if it works out differently that is fine too.