because Draymond would not bother Cap at all. thats why. you want proof? the pistons couldnt slow him down from getting his season average or higher when he was 39 years old. that team was known as one of the best defensive teams ever, and they had a great defender in rodman who bothered shaq at times.
proof
Detroit Pistons at Los Angeles Lakers Box Score, March 26, 1987 | Basketball-Reference.com
and
Los Angeles Lakers at Detroit Pistons Box Score, December 13, 1986 | Basketball-Reference.com
remember they only played twice per year east vs west conf.
That's not how the game works.
For starters, they weren't even the best defensive team that season, and '87 was basically the first year where they started to shift the perception to where they were a defensively physical squad. In '87 they were most definitely not at the heights of what they were defensively in '88, '89, '90 etc. You're generalizing their defensive prowess as if it was constantly at its peak throughout those years, when it couldn't be further from the truth. You either have only a basic understanding of that time or you're exaggerating on some back-in-the-day shyt.
Let me repeat:
that '87 squad was NOT one of the best defensive teams ever, never mind the fact that they weren't even close to the '16 Warriors, defensively.
Due to the lack of defensive framework, and the rules at the time, players on the block were simply allowed to go 1v1 without having to worry about help defenders loitering around in their space. The '16 Warriors were great at defending bigs because they'd use Draymond or Bogut to front them and push them out of position off the block, and when they did receive the ball they'd have Iggy, Barnes, Klay, Steph etc digging down and forcing them to give up at the ball, as most teams do in this era.
The '16 Warriors would force Cap to give up the ball and force players like Magic, Worthy, A.C. Green etc to beat them from the perimeter. They'd employ a tactic of actually leaving Magic open and using his man to shadow Cap.
Again, why bring up Rodman in this generalized manner when he was a rookie that season, not a great defender, averaging only 15 minutes off the bench, and primarily guarding wings? That was NOT the version of Rodman who bothered Shaq at times (which was nearly a decade later), which funnily enough when he did defend Shaq it was a
team effort.
Referencing some box scores of Cap's production to prove a point that Draymond/Warriors couldn't defend him in this context is meaningless, for this simple reason:
Los Angeles Lakers at Seattle SuperSonics Box Score, April 2, 1987 | Basketball-Reference.com - 10 points on 5/15 field goals, 4 turnovers
Los Angeles Lakers at Los Angeles Clippers Box Score, March 9, 1987 | Basketball-Reference.com - 10 points on 4/10 field goals
Boston Celtics at Los Angeles Lakers Box Score, February 15, 1987 | Basketball-Reference.com - 10 points on 4/11 field goals, 4 turnovers
Los Angeles Lakers at Milwaukee Bucks Box Score, December 10, 1986 | Basketball-Reference.com - 10 points on 4/15 field goals
Los Angeles Lakers at Utah Jazz Box Score, February 28, 1987 | Basketball-Reference.com - 12 points on 3/13 field goals, 4 turnovers
Sacramento Kings at Los Angeles Lakers Box Score, February 4, 1987 | Basketball-Reference.com - 12 points on 4/9 field goals
Los Angeles Lakers at Sacramento Kings Box Score, February 10, 1987 | Basketball-Reference.com - 13 points on 4/13 field goals
And the list goes on.
None of those teams that held him to subpar production are fukking with the '16 Warriors on the defensive end.
. If you cant score 20 a night you a bum then be confused when harden/KD/Russ all getting bounced out the playoffs. Draymonds defense is legendary especially for his size he was the main reason they could switch everything and still guard and rebound against bigs taller than him. I guess they should get rid of the defensive awards and only have offense for yall 
If Bron didn’t play with D.Wade and Kyrie he’d have no rings, if Kobe didn’t play with Shaq and Pau he’d have no rings, tf are you trying to imply?
