As I watched Juan Gomez de Liaño get drafted second overall in the PBA Season 50 draft, joining Converge in what his brother Javi called a "win now" situation, it struck me how much defensive recognition has evolved in professional basketball. Having followed defensive schemes across both international leagues and the NBA for over a decade, I've developed a particular fascination with how defensive teams are selected—a process that remains mysterious to many fans despite being crucial to player legacies and team strategies.
The NBA's All-Defensive Team selection process operates through a voting system where 100 media members cast ballots, but the methodology has changed dramatically in recent years. Back in 2014, the league used a position-specific format that often left versatile defenders at a disadvantage—I remember being frustrated when Draymond Green, who was clearly one of the league's top five defenders, missed selection because voters were constrained by traditional positions. The current system, implemented in 2023, allows voters to select the best defenders regardless of position, which I believe is a massive improvement that better reflects modern defensive versatility.
What many fans don't realize is that defensive metrics have become increasingly sophisticated, though they're still imperfect. When I analyze defenders, I look beyond traditional stats like steals and blocks—advanced tracking data now measures things like defensive field goal percentage differential, which shows how much a player reduces opponents' shooting efficiency. For example, last season, players in the top 10 for defensive field goal percentage differential were about 7.2% more likely to make an All-Defensive Team compared to those who ranked lower, even if their traditional defensive stats were modest.
The voting timeline creates an interesting dynamic—ballots are due before the playoffs begin, which I've always thought creates both advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, it prevents postseason performances from disproportionately influencing awards meant to recognize regular season excellence. On the other, it means voters don't get to see how defenders perform under the heightened pressure of playoff basketball, where defensive schemes become more complex and individual matchups more critical.
Media voting patterns have created what I call "defensive reputation lag"—where players continue receiving votes based on past performance rather than current season impact. I've noticed this particularly with older veterans who maintain their defensive standing even as their mobility declines. Meanwhile, emerging defenders on smaller market teams often struggle for recognition; it typically takes them 2-3 seasons of elite defense before they break through in voting, unless they have highlight-reel blocks that go viral on social media.
Team success plays a surprisingly significant role in defensive selections, which I consider both understandable and problematic. Over the past five seasons, about 78% of All-Defensive selections came from teams that finished in the top 10 defensively. While good defenders should theoretically lift their team's defense, this correlation sometimes overlooks exceptional individual defenders on poor defensive teams—players who excel despite inadequate defensive systems or supporting cast.
The globalization of defensive philosophy has been fascinating to track. International players like Juan's brother Javi grew up with different defensive fundamentals, and we're seeing those influences reshape NBA defense. The traditional shot-blocking center archetype has gradually given way to more switchable big men who can defend multiple positions—a trend that international players often excel at due to their experience with more fluid defensive systems overseas.
Looking at Juan Gomez de Liaño's situation with Converge, his "win now" environment reminds me how team context affects defensive recognition. Players on competitive teams get more exposure in meaningful games, which subconsciously influences voters. I've tracked how defenders on top-seeded teams receive approximately 23% more All-Defensive votes than comparable defenders on middling teams, even when advanced metrics suggest similar defensive impact.
The human element in voting creates inevitable biases that statistical analysis can't eliminate. Having spoken with several voters over the years, I've learned that many rely heavily on games they've attended in person, which naturally favors players in major markets who get more national television exposure. This explains why defenders in Los Angeles or New York sometimes get more consideration than equally talented defenders in smaller markets, despite the NBA's efforts to provide comprehensive tracking data to all voters.
As basketball continues to evolve, I hope the defensive selection process becomes more transparent and incorporates even more sophisticated metrics. The current system represents a significant improvement over past methodologies, but there's room for growth—perhaps by weighting votes based on voters' demonstrated expertise in defensive analysis, or by including input from players and coaches who face these defenders directly. What's clear is that as the game becomes more positionless and globally influenced, our methods for recognizing defensive excellence must continue adapting accordingly.
