Let's compare two players defensively.
Player A:
Averages 1.6 Steals per game, has a Defensive Rating (Per 100) of 107, and a DBPM of .9
Player B:
Averages 1.1 Steals per game, has a defensive Rating of 108, and a DBPM of .1
So just by looking at these stats they look like they are about the same defensively right with Player B having some slight statistical edges? Well Player A is James Harden and Player B is Marcus Smart. No one on here will argue that James Harden is anything more than a average defender, so why are we saying Smart is?
By the way I understand that DBPM and to a lesser extent DRTG is flawed, but don't you think if a sub par defender like Harden can have a solid score that Marcus Smart's elite defense would be amplified even more in these flawed stats? They tell the truth and that is despite Smart being a very good defender, he is in no way elite, or at least not yet. So please stop annointing him as an elite defender because his stats and his effect on the game, again defensively, haven't shown it.
It's like a broken record here - advanced defensive statistics are pretty much useless because they can't properly isolate an individual player's true effects on the game.
If you can sit there and watch both Harden, who is way below average defensively, and Smart and still try and make this argument, then I don't know what to tell you. Harden's lack of defense is a running joke around the league. That should tell you all that you need to know.
Kawhi has the worst Defensive Rating on the Spurs, so he must be terrible because these flawed stats say so, right?! -
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/kawhi-leonard-is-so-great-at-defense-hes-actually-hurting-the-spurs/.
Understand the game and how defense should be played and actually watch the players play if you want to see their impact. That's how basketball has always worked.
Stats should always be used in conjunction with the superior eye test and never by themselves, and, furthermore, to be as accurate as possible, you should always use as many differing stats as you can to get as broad of a perspective as you can. Contrary to popular belief, there is no end-all-be-all stat. If you have six or seven similar stats telling you the same thing that matches the eye test, such as Marcus is not a good three point shooter, then you can justifiably assume that these things are true. But how can you rationalize these defensive stats when half of them have him as an average defender at best, or even below average, while the other half have him as elite?
