Fact or Fiction: Isaiah Thomas is now an NBA Superstar

[Celtics18]

I see Al Horford as the best player on the Celtics.

You coulda made a fairly reasonable argument for that before the season. But now? No way. IT is reaching the All-NBA level, superstar echelon now. A legit argument can be made for Thomas as a top 20 player. You couldn't reasonably do the same with Horford.

1)IT
2A)Horford
2B) Avery Bradley

I mean, Horford is still top 5 on the team in offensive rating and #1 on the team in defensive rating.  Thomas is last on the team in defensive rating. 

I think he's scoring really well.  Horford is a better basketball player.  And since HOrford isn't a superstar and he's better than Thomas, I see no rational argument for Thomas being a superstar.

Defensive metrics are pretty flawed. Though Thomas is probably one of our lesser defenders it's not like he's Harden or Lillard out there. He doesn't blow assignments very often, he hustles and gives good effort on that end, doesn't gamble in the passing lanes too often. He's a solid below average (as opposed to terrible) defender. While Al is an above average defender, and a good offensive player, Thomas is an ELITE level player on offense.

And as you've mentioned before LB, being a top level offensive player is more important than being a top level defensive one, no? I believe you've mentioned that before while discussing a particular 3rd year Celtics guard

I'm sorry, but this is very far from true. I agree that defensive statistics aren't the greatest measurements of defensive prowess by themselves and the eye test should count more, but virtually every single thing points to IT as a disastrous defender, both due to his size and just being a bad defender in himself. He's even considered the very worst defender in the league in several differing defensive metrics:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/DRPM

http://nbamath.com/tpa-database/nba-2016-17-tpa-scores/

DRPM -- and RPM in general -- is a crappy stat even with a season worth of data.  It is even more of a crappy stat with only half a season of data.

Look just a little higher on the DRPM list that has Isaiah at the bottom (#437).  You'll find Avery Bradley at #405.

RPM is an the worst kind of abomination for advanced stats because it is hyped up to be credible when it is not.  It has error bars that make it's rankings absurd.  Collinearity problems permeate the data sets.   Even with a full season of data, there is no statistical significance to the ranking of one player 200 slots from another.

RPM is basically the Gilderoy Lockhart of advanced stats.


Sorry - those three letters trigger one of my pocket rants.

Is there an easy to use stat that you like for ranking players defensively?

[mmmmm]

One more rant:   In my not-so-humble opinion, perimeter defense in guards is just a ridiculously overrated attribute among fans.   In the modern NBA it is a joke.  A farce.  Between two guards, one being an elite defender and an average offensive player and the other being an elite offensive player and an average defender, the latter is massively more valuable in today's NBA.

With the importance of the 3PT shot and the lack of hand-checking, elite attacking guards cannot be stopped.  So called 'elite' perimeter defenders do not stop them.  They barely slow them down.

When you spend your money on offense and defense, spend your defensive dollars on your bigs.  Because they are the ones who are going to be defending the vast majority of shots because attacking guards are going to go right by your perimeter defenders.

This becomes very apparent if you spend some time looking at the shot contention stats in the NBA player tracking data.   On a per-minute basis, the bigs end up defending far more shots than the guards do.   Yet guards, overall, take far more of the shots.

The only time that elite scoring guards like Lowry, Harden, Thomas, DeRozan or Westbrook every get 'shut down' in a game is if either (a) they are the _only_ scorer on the team playing a very good paint defense that can put them in a box or (b) they simply have a bad game on their own.   Otherwise, those players are putting up 20+ points nightly and it doesn't matter whether they are facing Marcus Smart or Kemba Walker.

So any argument about star or super star criteria that puts defense and offense on the same weighting for a guard in the modern NBA is an argument that doesn't acknowledge that we aren't playing in Gary Payton's NBA.

[Monkhouse]

My prerequisite is that Isaiah Thomas does well in the playoffs. If he can put up these numbers, and we bow out of the playoffs, I will still think he was an superstar. If your player is putting up anywhere close to those numbers, and you're losing games, its also on the other players not being as good. Horford isn't going to exactly get us over the hump. We need another third player, a great wing, or a big man that can rebound and do the dirty work.

Right now, he's playing like an Allstar.

Ideally, you want to at least get a good defensive big man like Bogut. Someone you can test drive, and see if he fits your team overall. Isaiah Thomas in my eyes kind of reminds me of Lillard. No one really expected him to be this good, but he's surpassing everyone's expectations.

[mmmmm]

To anyone else that wants to try and answer the question that Vermont Green asked, has there ever been a player that averaged IT's current offensive stats for 5 years in the modern era that was not considered a superstar?

No one ever seemed to actually answer celticsclay's question so I thought I'd look it up.

According to basketball-reference.com there have been just 9 players to average 28 ppg for 5 seasons:

http://bkref.com/tiny/5TD0t

Michael Jordan 11 times
Oscar Robertson 8
Wilt Chamberlain 7
Jerry West  6
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar  5
Kobe Bryant  5
Kevin Durant  5
Allen Iverson  5
Shaquille O'Neal  5

Dantley, Lebron, Karl Malone, Dominique all did it 4 times.

If I apply the additional requirement of 6+ assists,  the list shrinks to just one:

http://bkref.com/tiny/zRZCB

Oscar Robertson 8
Lebron James  4
Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Jerry West 3
Tiny Archibald, James Harden, Allen Iverson, Russell Westbrook 2  (including this year for Harden & Westbrook)

Players who did it just once:  Arenas, Rick Barry, Steph Curry, Richie Guerin, John Havlicek, Dwyane Wade and Thomas (so far this year)

Now, given that the definition of "super star" is completely arbitrary, I'm sure some will argue over just what percentage of those names are "super stars".

But I'd bet a poll of most folks would agree that _most_ of those names are "super stars".

That doesn't at all make Isaiah one.  He hasn't even completed this season at those point/assist rates.

He's on a pretty impressive pace so far, though.

I think we'll just have to see how his career unfolds over the next few seasons.

[SHAQATTACK]

If KG says so ..


Good enough for me.

[mmmmm]

I see Al Horford as the best player on the Celtics.

You coulda made a fairly reasonable argument for that before the season. But now? No way. IT is reaching the All-NBA level, superstar echelon now. A legit argument can be made for Thomas as a top 20 player. You couldn't reasonably do the same with Horford.

1)IT
2A)Horford
2B) Avery Bradley

I mean, Horford is still top 5 on the team in offensive rating and #1 on the team in defensive rating.  Thomas is last on the team in defensive rating. 

I think he's scoring really well.  Horford is a better basketball player.  And since HOrford isn't a superstar and he's better than Thomas, I see no rational argument for Thomas being a superstar.

Defensive metrics are pretty flawed. Though Thomas is probably one of our lesser defenders it's not like he's Harden or Lillard out there. He doesn't blow assignments very often, he hustles and gives good effort on that end, doesn't gamble in the passing lanes too often. He's a solid below average (as opposed to terrible) defender. While Al is an above average defender, and a good offensive player, Thomas is an ELITE level player on offense.

And as you've mentioned before LB, being a top level offensive player is more important than being a top level defensive one, no? I believe you've mentioned that before while discussing a particular 3rd year Celtics guard

I'm sorry, but this is very far from true. I agree that defensive statistics aren't the greatest measurements of defensive prowess by themselves and the eye test should count more, but virtually every single thing points to IT as a disastrous defender, both due to his size and just being a bad defender in himself. He's even considered the very worst defender in the league in several differing defensive metrics:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/DRPM

http://nbamath.com/tpa-database/nba-2016-17-tpa-scores/

DRPM -- and RPM in general -- is a crappy stat even with a season worth of data.  It is even more of a crappy stat with only half a season of data.

Look just a little higher on the DRPM list that has Isaiah at the bottom (#437).  You'll find Avery Bradley at #405.

RPM is an the worst kind of abomination for advanced stats because it is hyped up to be credible when it is not.  It has error bars that make it's rankings absurd.  Collinearity problems permeate the data sets.   Even with a full season of data, there is no statistical significance to the ranking of one player 200 slots from another.

RPM is basically the Gilderoy Lockhart of advanced stats.


Sorry - those three letters trigger one of my pocket rants.

Is there an easy to use stat that you like for ranking players defensively?

No.  There isn't a magic 'easy button' single stat for ranking players defensively.  And folks should just stop looking for one.

The problem is that defense is an extremely nuanced activity in basketball.  The scoreboard is the ultimate measure of that defense but it results from not only individually isolated actions but also direct-coupled and indirect-coupled causations.

I personally tend to focus on 5-man units and how they perform, given large enough samples.   If I have to look at individual defensive stats, i'm usually looking at context-specific, situational stats such as defensive FG% and rebounding or shots defended in zones.  But none of those should ever be mistaken to be a single all-explaining defensive stat for ranking players.  They can tell you some useful things, such as when it comes to actually defending shots, Isaiah sucks within a few feet of the rim but is actually a very good shot defender when out away from the basket, especially outside the arc.  But knowing that doesn't let me easily rank him as worse or better than say, some guard on another team or even on his own team.

When comparing players, it is important to compare them where context is common.  Comparing the defense of a perimeter guard to that of a low-post baseline-roaming big is apples and oranges.  You can't "rank" them.  And even between two players who play the same position, it is important to understand how each is actually deployed defensively on his respective teams.  Do they play against starters?  Bench?  Do they cover the ball-handler?  Etc., etc.

In the end, I have come to feel that the actual, real marginal value difference in perimeter defense among most guards is negligible compared to the marginal value difference in their offense.   If I'm a GM, I'm not writing a big check to get an elite defensive guard over an elite offensive one.

When it comes to bigs, though, I feel very differently.  I see in the data I peruse that there are huge differences in the defensive results for 5-man units based on who the two front court players are.  That's because, as I ranted in my other post, that's where in the end, most of the non-3PT shots are ending up being defended.   If I'm going to spend money or assets to improve my defense, I'm going to spend it in the front court.

[saltlover]

I see Al Horford as the best player on the Celtics.

You coulda made a fairly reasonable argument for that before the season. But now? No way. IT is reaching the All-NBA level, superstar echelon now. A legit argument can be made for Thomas as a top 20 player. You couldn't reasonably do the same with Horford.

1)IT
2A)Horford
2B) Avery Bradley

I mean, Horford is still top 5 on the team in offensive rating and #1 on the team in defensive rating.  Thomas is last on the team in defensive rating. 

I think he's scoring really well.  Horford is a better basketball player.  And since HOrford isn't a superstar and he's better than Thomas, I see no rational argument for Thomas being a superstar.

Defensive metrics are pretty flawed. Though Thomas is probably one of our lesser defenders it's not like he's Harden or Lillard out there. He doesn't blow assignments very often, he hustles and gives good effort on that end, doesn't gamble in the passing lanes too often. He's a solid below average (as opposed to terrible) defender. While Al is an above average defender, and a good offensive player, Thomas is an ELITE level player on offense.

And as you've mentioned before LB, being a top level offensive player is more important than being a top level defensive one, no? I believe you've mentioned that before while discussing a particular 3rd year Celtics guard

I'm sorry, but this is very far from true. I agree that defensive statistics aren't the greatest measurements of defensive prowess by themselves and the eye test should count more, but virtually every single thing points to IT as a disastrous defender, both due to his size and just being a bad defender in himself. He's even considered the very worst defender in the league in several differing defensive metrics:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/DRPM

http://nbamath.com/tpa-database/nba-2016-17-tpa-scores/

DRPM -- and RPM in general -- is a crappy stat even with a season worth of data.  It is even more of a crappy stat with only half a season of data.

Look just a little higher on the DRPM list that has Isaiah at the bottom (#437).  You'll find Avery Bradley at #405.

RPM is an the worst kind of abomination for advanced stats because it is hyped up to be credible when it is not.  It has error bars that make it's rankings absurd.  Collinearity problems permeate the data sets.   Even with a full season of data, there is no statistical significance to the ranking of one player 200 slots from another.

RPM is basically the Gilderoy Lockhart of advanced stats.


Sorry - those three letters trigger one of my pocket rants.

Is there an easy to use stat that you like for ranking players defensively?

No.  There isn't a magic 'easy button' single stat for ranking players defensively.  And folks should just stop looking for one.

The problem is that defense is an extremely nuanced activity in basketball.  The scoreboard is the ultimate measure of that defense but it results from not only individually isolated actions but also direct-coupled and indirect-coupled causations.

I personally tend to focus on 5-man units and how they perform, given large enough samples.   If I have to look at individual defensive stats, i'm usually looking at context-specific, situational stats such as defensive FG% and rebounding or shots defended in zones.  But none of those should ever be mistaken to be a single all-explaining defensive stat for ranking players.  They can tell you some useful things, such as when it comes to actually defending shots, Isaiah sucks within a few feet of the rim but is actually a very good shot defender when out away from the basket, especially outside the arc.  But knowing that doesn't let me easily rank him as worse or better than say, some guard on another team or even on his own team.

When comparing players, it is important to compare them where context is common.  Comparing the defense of a perimeter guard to that of a low-post baseline-roaming big is apples and oranges.  You can't "rank" them.  And even between two players who play the same position, it is important to understand how each is actually deployed defensively on his respective teams.  Do they play against starters?  Bench?  Do they cover the ball-handler?  Etc., etc.

In the end, I have come to feel that the actual, real marginal value difference in perimeter defense among most guards is negligible compared to the marginal value difference in their offense.   If I'm a GM, I'm not writing a big check to get an elite defensive guard over an elite offensive one.

When it comes to bigs, though, I feel very differently.  I see in the data I peruse that there are huge differences in the defensive results for 5-man units based on who the two front court players are.  That's because, as I ranted in my other post, that's where in the end, most of the non-3PT shots are ending up being defended.   If I'm going to spend money or assets to improve my defense, I'm going to spend it in the front court.

Mmmmm, I would posit that for guards, one thing to look at in lineups is perecntage of 3-point attempts.  If they drop when a certain perimeter defender is on the floor, that's probably a good sign of his defense, forcing the ball away from where teams desire to shoot.

[BDeCosta26]

I see Al Horford as the best player on the Celtics.

You coulda made a fairly reasonable argument for that before the season. But now? No way. IT is reaching the All-NBA level, superstar echelon now. A legit argument can be made for Thomas as a top 20 player. You couldn't reasonably do the same with Horford.

1)IT
2A)Horford
2B) Avery Bradley

I mean, Horford is still top 5 on the team in offensive rating and #1 on the team in defensive rating.  Thomas is last on the team in defensive rating. 

I think he's scoring really well.  Horford is a better basketball player.  And since HOrford isn't a superstar and he's better than Thomas, I see no rational argument for Thomas being a superstar.

Defensive metrics are pretty flawed. Though Thomas is probably one of our lesser defenders it's not like he's Harden or Lillard out there. He doesn't blow assignments very often, he hustles and gives good effort on that end, doesn't gamble in the passing lanes too often. He's a solid below average (as opposed to terrible) defender. While Al is an above average defender, and a good offensive player, Thomas is an ELITE level player on offense.

And as you've mentioned before LB, being a top level offensive player is more important than being a top level defensive one, no? I believe you've mentioned that before while discussing a particular 3rd year Celtics guard

I'm sorry, but this is very far from true. I agree that defensive statistics aren't the greatest measurements of defensive prowess by themselves and the eye test should count more, but virtually every single thing points to IT as a disastrous defender, both due to his size and just being a bad defender in himself. He's even considered the very worst defender in the league in several differing defensive metrics:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/DRPM

http://nbamath.com/tpa-database/nba-2016-17-tpa-scores/

I don't think you appreciate how bad he really is defensively. He's worse than Harden or Lillard, because they at least have the size to bother shots. He can't get around screens to save his life, regularly misses defensive rotations, regularly gets blown by on drives, and 99% of the league can either isolate him or post him up and shoot over him. He's a much worse defender than what you claim, even for all of his offensive mastery.

I like IT, but the Toronto game ultimately showed how limited he really is as our "franchise" player right now. In the playoffs, they can legitimately just make him switch defenders or iso him, and he simply can't do anything about it due to his diminutive size. It's actually surprising that other teams don't pick on him defensively more.

EDIT: And let me say that it's not due to a disinterest in playing defense either. He actually plays hard (or at least to me it seems like that) on that end, but it just seems like he's physically incapable of being effective or even average on that side of the ball.

You just made my point though JP. He's a steadily below average defender. Namely because of his size. his awareness and effort aren't lacking, especially in important situations. If the guy was 6'2, he'd be an average defender. His size kills him on that end, and that's what the metrics show.

He puts effort into defense. He hustles to get around screens (even if he often loses that battle), he challenges shots as much as his body allows. He doesn't gamble stupidly that often. You say that at least Harden and Lillard have the length to bother shots and play some kind of D, but they don't actually do it. Isaiah at least puts in the effort.

My point is, if Harden is a superstar and his defense doesn't matter enough to change that, neither does IT's. And to LB's point, Horford ABSOLUTELY makes every single guy on this team better, but Idc how you cut it, IT is the best player. You take Horford off this team and their probably in the 40/45 win range. You take IT off this team and idk if they even get much past 30 wins.

[Monkhouse]

I see Al Horford as the best player on the Celtics.

You coulda made a fairly reasonable argument for that before the season. But now? No way. IT is reaching the All-NBA level, superstar echelon now. A legit argument can be made for Thomas as a top 20 player. You couldn't reasonably do the same with Horford.

1)IT
2A)Horford
2B) Avery Bradley

I mean, Horford is still top 5 on the team in offensive rating and #1 on the team in defensive rating.  Thomas is last on the team in defensive rating. 

I think he's scoring really well.  Horford is a better basketball player.  And since HOrford isn't a superstar and he's better than Thomas, I see no rational argument for Thomas being a superstar.

Defensive metrics are pretty flawed. Though Thomas is probably one of our lesser defenders it's not like he's Harden or Lillard out there. He doesn't blow assignments very often, he hustles and gives good effort on that end, doesn't gamble in the passing lanes too often. He's a solid below average (as opposed to terrible) defender. While Al is an above average defender, and a good offensive player, Thomas is an ELITE level player on offense.

And as you've mentioned before LB, being a top level offensive player is more important than being a top level defensive one, no? I believe you've mentioned that before while discussing a particular 3rd year Celtics guard

I'm sorry, but this is very far from true. I agree that defensive statistics aren't the greatest measurements of defensive prowess by themselves and the eye test should count more, but virtually every single thing points to IT as a disastrous defender, both due to his size and just being a bad defender in himself. He's even considered the very worst defender in the league in several differing defensive metrics:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/DRPM

http://nbamath.com/tpa-database/nba-2016-17-tpa-scores/

I don't think you appreciate how bad he really is defensively. He's worse than Harden or Lillard, because they at least have the size to bother shots. He can't get around screens to save his life, regularly misses defensive rotations, regularly gets blown by on drives, and 99% of the league can either isolate him or post him up and shoot over him. He's a much worse defender than what you claim, even for all of his offensive mastery.

I like IT, but the Toronto game ultimately showed how limited he really is as our "franchise" player right now. In the playoffs, they can legitimately just make him switch defenders or iso him, and he simply can't do anything about it due to his diminutive size. It's actually surprising that other teams don't pick on him defensively more.

EDIT: And let me say that it's not due to a disinterest in playing defense either. He actually plays hard (or at least to me it seems like that) on that end, but it just seems like he's physically incapable of being effective or even average on that side of the ball.

You just made my point though JP. He's a steadily below average defender. Namely because of his size. his awareness and effort aren't lacking, especially in important situations. If the guy was 6'2, he'd be an average defender. His size kills him on that end, and that's what the metrics show.

He puts effort into defense. He hustles to get around screens (even if he often loses that battle), he challenges shots as much as his body allows. He doesn't gamble stupidly that often. You say that at least Harden and Lillard have the length to bother shots and play some kind of D, but they don't actually do it. Isaiah at least puts in the effort.

My point is, if Harden is a superstar and his defense doesn't matter enough to change that, neither does IT's. And to LB's point, Horford ABSOLUTELY makes every single guy on this team better, but Idc how you cut it, IT is the best player. You take Horford off this team and their probably in the 40/45 win range. You take IT off this team and idk if they even get much past 30 wins.

I think if you took Isaiah Thomas off the roster, then we might actually end up being like the 8th seed, or barely reaching the playoffs. Thomas is very unappreciated here.

[LarBrd33]

One more rant:   In my not-so-humble opinion, perimeter defense in guards is just a ridiculously overrated attribute among fans.   In the modern NBA it is a joke.  A farce.  Between two guards, one being an elite defender and an average offensive player and the other being an elite offensive player and an average defender, the latter is massively more valuable in today's NBA.

With the importance of the 3PT shot and the lack of hand-checking, elite attacking guards cannot be stopped.  So called 'elite' perimeter defenders do not stop them.  They barely slow them down.

When you spend your money on offense and defense, spend your defensive dollars on your bigs.  Because they are the ones who are going to be defending the vast majority of shots because attacking guards are going to go right by your perimeter defenders.

This becomes very apparent if you spend some time looking at the shot contention stats in the NBA player tracking data.   On a per-minute basis, the bigs end up defending far more shots than the guards do.   Yet guards, overall, take far more of the shots.

The only time that elite scoring guards like Lowry, Harden, Thomas, DeRozan or Westbrook every get 'shut down' in a game is if either (a) they are the _only_ scorer on the team playing a very good paint defense that can put them in a box or (b) they simply have a bad game on their own.   Otherwise, those players are putting up 20+ points nightly and it doesn't matter whether they are facing Marcus Smart or Kemba Walker.

So any argument about star or super star criteria that puts defense and offense on the same weighting for a guard in the modern NBA is an argument that doesn't acknowledge that we aren't playing in Gary Payton's NBA.

thats why people say Marcus smart is not as valuable as someone like nerlens Noel.  Big man defense is far more important than perimeter defense, because a big man can impact the game in a major way on that end.  Nobody will ever build a defense around a guard.  A big man can anchor an entire team though.   Horford has been our best player this year despite the great offense by Thomas (made possible because of Horford).

[LarBrd33]

I'm with Mark Cuban in that I don't consider Russell Westbrook a superstar.  So I sure as hell don't consider Thomas one.

People have different definitions of Superstar.  Some think it's anyone who makes an all-star team.  Some think it's anyone who makes an All-NBA 1st team.  Some think it's anyone who wins MVP.  I'd say all three are wrong.  I never considered Rose or Nash "superstars" for instance despite them winning MVP awards.  SUperstars are the transcendent players that rarely come around.  Wilt.  Kareem.  Magic.  Bird.  Jordan.  Hakeem.  Shaq.  Duncan.  LeBron.  Embiid.  Simmons.  It's a short list.

This post is made explicitly to get a rise out of certain posters on this board.

I wish there was a word for that sort of thing.

Humor?

troll?

Dudes relax.  I left TJ McConnell off my list as a joke.  Don't take it so seriously.

[trickybilly]

I'm with Mark Cuban in that I don't consider Russell Westbrook a superstar.  So I sure as hell don't consider Thomas one.

People have different definitions of Superstar.  Some think it's anyone who makes an all-star team.  Some think it's anyone who makes an All-NBA 1st team.  Some think it's anyone who wins MVP.  I'd say all three are wrong.  I never considered Rose or Nash "superstars" for instance despite them winning MVP awards.  SUperstars are the transcendent players that rarely come around.  Wilt.  Kareem.  Magic.  Bird.  Jordan.  Hakeem.  Shaq.  Duncan.  LeBron.  Embiid.  Simmons.  It's a short list.

This post is made explicitly to get a rise out of certain posters on this board.

I wish there was a word for that sort of thing.

Humor?

troll?

Dudes relax.  I left TJ McConnell off my list as a joke.  Don't take it so seriously.

lol. TP.

[jpotter33]

One more rant:   In my not-so-humble opinion, perimeter defense in guards is just a ridiculously overrated attribute among fans.   In the modern NBA it is a joke.  A farce.  Between two guards, one being an elite defender and an average offensive player and the other being an elite offensive player and an average defender, the latter is massively more valuable in today's NBA.

With the importance of the 3PT shot and the lack of hand-checking, elite attacking guards cannot be stopped.  So called 'elite' perimeter defenders do not stop them.  They barely slow them down.

When you spend your money on offense and defense, spend your defensive dollars on your bigs.  Because they are the ones who are going to be defending the vast majority of shots because attacking guards are going to go right by your perimeter defenders.

This becomes very apparent if you spend some time looking at the shot contention stats in the NBA player tracking data.   On a per-minute basis, the bigs end up defending far more shots than the guards do.   Yet guards, overall, take far more of the shots.

The only time that elite scoring guards like Lowry, Harden, Thomas, DeRozan or Westbrook every get 'shut down' in a game is if either (a) they are the _only_ scorer on the team playing a very good paint defense that can put them in a box or (b) they simply have a bad game on their own.   Otherwise, those players are putting up 20+ points nightly and it doesn't matter whether they are facing Marcus Smart or Kemba Walker.

So any argument about star or super star criteria that puts defense and offense on the same weighting for a guard in the modern NBA is an argument that doesn't acknowledge that we aren't playing in Gary Payton's NBA.

Completely disagree. I think with as perimeter-oriented as today's game is, perimeter defense is as important as ever. You can't sit there and say that perimeter defense is overrated when one of the most important qualities of a good NBA team is having at least one to two good perimeter defenders - Lebron/Shump, Kawhi/Green, Iggy/Green, Roberson/Oladipo, Smart/AB/Jae, Lowry/Carroll, Conley/Allen, etc. to defend and challenge the perimeter scoring threats of the opponent.

But it's a completely different type of defense than interior defense. I'd argue that where interior defense is meant to actually anchor the defense and get stops in itself, perimeter defense is more about making things difficult for the offensive player and not giving them easy looks from the perimeter, which hopefully leads to a stop from a missed shot or bad pass.

Sure, you can't really "shut down" perimeter plays in today's game, but that's not really the point of perimeter defense. If you don't have challenging defenders that can make things difficult for the perimeter offensive player, then they go off offensively, just as Derozan did on IT, Brown, and Green the other night, though not against Smart who made it difficult for him. That could very well be the difference between a player going 14 for 20 and 8 for 20.

And last year when we were at our best we were actually do both of these things - making opponents work hard to score from the perimeter and actually forcing turnovers, too.

- The ability to get around screens in the PnR;
- The proper rotations and help defense to keep off the ball shooters at bay;
- The ability to challenge and make things difficult for perimeter players;

These are all important contributions that perimeter defenders play. How do you think we've been so competitive with Golden State for the past three years? Perimeter defense.

Obviously, an offensive guard is more valuable than a defensive guard in the NBA, but to completely write it off like you're suggesting is short-sighted. It wouldn't make sense that perimeter defense becomes less important as the game evolves more and more to a perimeter orientation.