Defense vs. Offense

[EnoughSaid]

What kind of player would you rather have and build around?

1) A player that can score in a lot of ways. Someone who you can rely on in the clutch and to always deliver. A great dribbler as well.

OR

2) A defensive player of the year candidate. Someone who hustles, grabs the boards and is always the lock down man. He can defend 4 positions and is the one you put on the other team's star.

:confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

offensive player. being able to dominate in the clutch and consistently have an offense run through a player in theses situations is more valuable in my opinion.

[iamgine]

Would kind of depend on their contract. On lower salary, I'd take #2 but on high salary, I'd take #1.

[D-Wade316]

Both. Can't select one without the other.

[TheAesirsFinest]

Offensive player, unless the 2nd player is a DPOY C.

[Indian guy]

Defense can easily be replaced or made-up through team play. There's no such thing for offense. If you don't have top-level offensive talent, you have no hope of being a winning team.

[NJW1247]

So Allen Iverson or Scottie Pippen?



Yeah I'll take the latter.

[DMAVS41]

Defense can easily be replaced or made-up through team play. There's no such thing for offense. If you don't have top-level offensive talent, you have no hope of being a winning team.

Bingo.

[97 bulls]

offensive player. being able to dominate in the clutch and consistently have an offense run through a player in theses situations is more valuable in my opinion.
Funny thing is, your team tried that way for about 7 years. Then they wised up and got some guys that can play some defense and went out and got themmselves a championship. Id think yyoud be on the offensive side.

[DMAVS41]

Funny thing is, your team tried that way for about 7 years. Then they wised up and got some guys that can play some defense and went out and got themmselves a championship. Id think yyoud be on the offensive side.

this is about 1 player...not a team.

good luck trying to win without somebody to take over in the clutch.

goes both ways. both can be great, but if i had to choose...i'd take the guy that is going to be there in those close games.

[Indian guy]

Funny thing is, your team tried that way for about 7 years. Then they wised up and got some guys that can play some defense and went out and got themmselves a championship. Id think yyoud be on the offensive side.

We're talking about INDIVIDUALS here. A top-level offensive player that you can run your offense through is 100x more valuable than a Ben Wallace. Defense is easily replaceable.

[97 bulls]

We're talking about INDIVIDUALS here. A top-level offensive player that you can run your offense through is 100x more valuable than a Ben Wallace. Defense is easily replaceable.
Even then. Are we comparing a bill russell to yao ming? Or like another poster said pippen and iverson? Even though the 2nd example may not be a good one because pippen could score..

[97 bulls]

offensive player. being able to dominate in the clutch and consistently have an offense run through a player in theses situations is more valuable in my opinion.
But think about it dmavs.... there's 4r quarters in every nba game you have to be able to get there. And I've seen more teams lose because thhey couldn't stop anybody than lose because they couldn't score.

And for every clutch offensive play that needed, there someone on the other side that needs to be clutch defensivly ie not fouling etc.

[DMAVS41]

But think about it dmavs.... there's 4r quarters in every nba game you have to be able to get there. And I've seen more teams lose because thhey couldn't stop anybody than lose because they couldn't score.

And for every clutch offensive play that needed, there someone on the other side that needs to be clutch defensivly ie not fouling etc.

close games are inevitable...and along with that clutch ability you are getting an elite offensive first option.

give me the offensive guy all day long. this is basically something like dirk vs pippen or dirk vs rodman.....not even close for me. dirk easily.

just my opinion though.

[97 bulls]

this is about 1 player...not a team.

good luck trying to win without somebody to take over in the clutch.

goes both ways. both can be great, but if i had to choose...i'd take the guy that is going to be there in those close games.
And the more I think about it, based on previous conversations id had with you, even if were talking about a defensive oriented team vs it polar opposite, you'd still more than likely pick the offensive team. Am I right?

[97 bulls]

close games are inevitable...and along with that clutch ability you are getting an elite offensive first option.

give me the offensive guy all day long. this is basically something like dirk vs pippen or dirk vs rodman.....not even close for me. dirk easily.

just my opinion though.
Well obviously this is our opinion. But let's look at dirk. He shot 42% thiis past finals. It was the job the mavs did on james that won that series

[DMAVS41]

And the more I think about it, based on previous conversations id had with you, even if were talking about a defensive oriented team vs it polar opposite, you'd still more than likely pick the offensive team. Am I right?

not at all. a straight up offensive team has really never won.

but if the choice is a number 1 offensive option like carmelo vs iguodala or something...its not close for me.

you can surround a guy like melo or dirk with good defense and its a lot easier to do that in my opinion. i think having a guy that can be relied on to give you 25 plus a night and is reliable in the clutch is the most important aspect of single player can have.

[DMAVS41]

Well obviously this is our opinion. But let's look at dirk. He shot 42% thiis past finals. It was the job the mavs did on james that won that series

or how about Dirk taking over in the clutch....that didn't matter?

you know, when Dirk destroyed both Wade and Lebron late in games.

Both matter mate. I just think offense is more valuable in this scenario when its about an individual player.

[knicksman]

offense of course. Theres a lot of defensive players in this league and they are paid for cheap. While offensive are harder to get. Its easier to play offense than defense so ill take the harder part.

[brisbaneman]

offensive player, for sure. How many guys can you get 30 points on efficient shooting while still getting his teammates involved?

It's much easier to learn defense. Take for example tyson chandler, people knew he was a very good defensive player, then all a sudden playing alongside Dirk he became the best interior defender in the nba.

[knicksman]

and the same can be applied to coaches. ill take dantoni over thibs any day. pjax never won because hes teams are just good defensively, they are also number 1 in offense with his triangle and in fact hes more of an offensive coach than a defensive coach.

[97 bulls]

or how about Dirk taking over in the clutch....that didn't matter?

you know, when Dirk destroyed both Wade and Lebron late in games.

Both matter mate. I just think offense is more valuable in this scenario when its about an individual player.
And I bet heat fans would say that clucth defense was just as important. Youre looking at this scenario from one side. To be honest, like you said both are valuable. The OP made it very clear that this defensive player was capable of locking down 4 positions.

And I wouldn't go so far as to say dirk "destroyed" wade or james. He didn't defend them and they didn't defend him.

[97 bulls]

offensive player, for sure. How many guys can you get 30 points on efficient shooting while still getting his teammates involved?

It's much easier to learn defense. Take for example tyson chandler, people knew he was a very good defensive player, then all a sudden playing alongside Dirk he became the best interior defender in the nba.
Lol you can't teanch defense. You can teach techniques, but defense is about intensity.

As far as your chandler/dirk comparison, if I remember correct, dirk was considered a failure. That is before chandler joined the mavs.

[97 bulls]

and the same can be applied to coaches. ill take dantoni over thibs any day. pjax never won because hes teams are just good defensively, they are also number 1 in offense with his triangle and in fact hes more of an offensive coach than a defensive coach.
Why? What has he done? How many super talent offensive juggernaut teams has dantoni had and lost? With homecourt advantage no less.

Dantoni is a modern day don nelson. How many championships does nellly have as a coach?

[DMAVS41]

And I bet heat fans would say that clucth defense was just as important. Youre looking at this scenario from one side. To be honest, like you said both are valuable. The OP made it very clear that this defensive player was capable of locking down 4 positions.

And I wouldn't go so far as to say dirk "destroyed" wade or james. He didn't defend them and they didn't defend him.

I'm looking at it from one side? Saying both are important.

Here is the thing. You can't guard these elite offensive players consistently late in games....or at the very least its difficult.

And Dirk was a failure? A big LOL

I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. Give me an example of actual players in which you think this is true.

[97 bulls]

I'm looking at it from one side? Saying both are important.

Here is the thing. You can't guard these elite offensive players consistently late in games....or at the very least its difficult.

And Dirk was a failure? A big LOL

I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. Give me an example of actual players in which you think this is true.
Bill Russell

Someone brought up a comparison of andre iguodala and carmello anthony. I don't thiink AIs defense is on par with anthonys offense. Howevver, finding a defensive playerrr that good, is much harder than finding an offensive pllayer that can score 25 a night.

[DMAVS41]

Bill Russell

Someone brought up a comparison of andre iguodala and carmello anthony. I don't thiink AIs defense is on par with anthonys offense. Howevver, finding a defensive playerrr that good, is much harder than finding an offensive pllayer that can score 25 a night.

Bill Russell is probably the greatest defender ever. And like every player, it matters who you surround him with.

Give me a present example of two players...or at least an example within the modern era. An offensive player vs a defensive player in which you think the defensive guy is more valuable.

This doesn't work if you can only name the single greatest defender of all time who happened to be surrounded by the most stacked rosters ever.

Would you take Ben Wallace over Dirk? Stuff like that.

[brisbaneman]

Lol you can't teanch defense. You can teach techniques, but defense is about intensity.

As far as your chandler/dirk comparison, if I remember correct, dirk was considered a failure. That is before chandler joined the mavs.

perhaps casual/racist fans may have considered dirk a 'failure' even though he made the WCF and Finals and gets you 50 wins a season...my point is Chandler was known as a good defender but was interchangeable with any number of defensive minded big men and was traded several times. Now he plays alongside Dirk and becomes the 2nd best player on a title team and enters ESPN's list at #38...

It's significantly harder to be a great offensive player simply because teams/coaches/scouts/players gameplan you so hard and will pick up on any tendency quickly--it's like a Le Chatalier's principle in sports. Plus individual defense is a bit more difficult than team defense to pull off in the NBA.

[iamgine]

Talking about defense, defensive players value go way up when it's a big man. Michael Cooper, Ron Artest, Gary Payton, etc...all impacted the defense much less than Hakeem, Dwight, Yao, KG, etc.

[G-train]

In the current NBA its unquestionably option 1.

[97 bulls]

Bill Russell is probably the greatest defender ever. And like every player, it matters who you surround him with.

Give me a present example of two players...or at least an example within the modern era. An offensive player vs a defensive player in which you think the defensive guy is more valuable.

This doesn't work if you can only name the single greatest defender of all time who happened to be surrounded by the most stacked rosters ever.

Would you take Ben Wallace over Dirk? Stuff like that.
I honestly can't think of a defensive player that is only one dimensional that I would take over dirk. Most of the guys I would take over dirk, are pretty good offensively too. Just probably not as good as he is offensively.

And I feel ben wallace is overrated. So no. I would take him over dirk either.

[DMAVS41]

I honestly can't think of a defensive player that is only one dimensional that I would take over dirk. Most of the guys I would take over dirk, are pretty good offensively too. Just probably not as good as he is offensively.

And I feel ben wallace is overrated. So no. I would take him over dirk either.

That is kind of the point. Payton was one of the best guard defenders ever...and he was a very good offensive player overall...but he's just not in Dirk's league overall as a player.

Howard is the best defensive force in the game right now. And he's a solid offensive player as well. Even with everything included, its absolutely debatable as to who the better player is right now. If you removed Howard's offense and made him mostly a defender, Dirk would easily be the better player.

[G-train]

Bill Russell's offence was as good as his defence.
But y'all teenagers dont know that. He ran the offence from the high post.

[97 bulls]

perhaps casual/racist fans may have considered dirk a 'failure' even though he made the WCF and Finals and gets you 50 wins a season...my point is Chandler was known as a good defender but was interchangeable with any number of defensive minded big men and was traded several times. Now he plays alongside Dirk and becomes the 2nd best player on a title team and enters ESPN's list at #38...

It's significantly harder to be a great offensive player simply because teams/coaches/scouts/players gameplan you so hard and will pick up on any tendency quickly--it's like a Le Chatalier's principle in sports. Plus individual defense is a bit more difficult than team defense to pull off in the NBA.
First of all, come off the "racist" inuendo. That's taking it way to far.

I agree chandler has always been a great defender. But the difference is that he's a champion.

And its not harder to be a great offensive player than defender. And to be honest, there's very few players (especially non bigmen) that can literrally efect a game defensively. Off the top, I can only think of jordan and pippen.

[97 bulls]

That is kind of the point. Payton was one of the best guard defenders ever...and he was a very good offensive player overall...but he's just not in Dirk's league overall as a player.

Howard is the best defensive force in the game right now. And he's a solid offensive player as well. Even with everything included, its absolutely debatable as to who the better player is right now. If you removed Howard's offense and made him mostly a defender, Dirk would easily be the better player.
But payton wasn't much of a help defender. He was a great man defender. And let's be honest. Dirk isn't that bad of a defender and is a solid rebounder considering he's a perimeter player.

And the only thing that makes dirk rank hiigher than payton is that championship.

[DMAVS41]

But payton wasn't much of a help defender. He was a great man defender. And let's be honest. Dirk isn't that bad of a defender and is a solid rebounder considering he's a perimeter player.

And the only thing that makes dirk rank hiigher than payton is that championship.

Dirk is definitely a good rebounder and a decent defender. I was just using him because you brought up the mavs. We can use another player if you like.

Totally disagree about Dirk vs Payton though. Has nothing to do with the title. Dirk was just a better player. And it defies your logic because Payton is easily a far superior defender.

What Dirk provides a team is just worth more than what Payton did. Simple as that.

[knicksman]

Why? What has he done? How many super talent offensive juggernaut teams has dantoni had and lost? With homecourt advantage no less.

Dantoni is a modern day don nelson. How many championships does nellly have as a coach?

What has thibs done too. they achieve the same but dantoni made it consistently. While thibs is the reason why tmac and yao ended their careers. Its easier to incorporate defensive schemes on an offensive team than to incorporate offense on a defensive team. I doubt the bulls will still improve on offense but I think those suns team could improve on defense if they have a capable center just like the mavs.

[knicksman]

And its not harder to be a great offensive player than defender. And to be honest, there's very few players (especially non bigmen) that can literrally efect a game defensively. Off the top, I can only think of jordan and pippen.

its harder to be an offensive player than defensive player thats why you can get ben wallace undrafted and iguodala in the late first round. When you play this game, defense is the first thing you learn and offense is last.

[brisbaneman]

First of all, come off the "racist" inuendo. That's taking it way to far.

I agree chandler has always been a great defender. But the difference is that he's a champion.

And its not harder to be a great offensive player than defender. And to be honest, there's very few players (especially non bigmen) that can literrally efect a game defensively. Off the top, I can only think of jordan and pippen.

I'm sorry but I do not care what anyone, says but it is a fact that Dirk has been disrespected and cut down in the past solely due to his race. Not one player has as much misinformation and flat out lies brought out against him than does Dirk.

[97 bulls]

What has thibs done too. they achieve the same but dantoni made it consistently. While thibs is the reason why tmac and yao ended their careers. Its easier to incorporate defensive schemes on an offensive team than to incorporate offense on a defensive team. I doubt the bulls will still improve on offense but I think those suns team could improve on defense if they have a capable center just like the mavs.
Thibs is a rookie coach. And he has a young team. The jury is still out on him. Where as, dantoni has been coach for at least 5 years.

And how. Did thibs end mcgrady and mings career?

[97 bulls]

Dirk is definitely a good rebounder and a decent defender. I was just using him because you brought up the mavs. We can use another player if you like.

Totally disagree about Dirk vs Payton though. Has nothing to do with the title. Dirk was just a better player. And it defies your logic because Payton is easily a far superior defender.

What Dirk provides a team is just worth more than what Payton did. Simple as that.
I don't think nowitzki was ranked higher than payton even after that mvp. And just think if seattle would've won that series in 96 and payton wins the finals mvp.

[knicksman]

Thibs is a rookie coach. And he has a young team. The jury is still out on him. Where as, dantoni has been coach for at least 5 years.

And how. Did thibs end mcgrady and mings career?

because he was the assistant of van gundy with those defensive teams they had which caused the injuries.

Dantoni also never had a center and a defensive assistant while I dont know about thibs. Most defensive teams won in their first year and likely regress the next coming years so if he cant win in the first year then likely he cant win the following years.

[Nero Tulip]

What kind of player would you rather have and build around?

1) A player that can score in a lot of ways. Someone who you can rely on in the clutch and to always deliver. A great dribbler as well.

OR

2) A defensive player of the year candidate. Someone who hustles, grabs the boards and is always the lock down man. He can defend 4 positions and is the one you put on the other team's star.

:confusedshrug:

One guy on defense can't have a huge impact by himself. Hustle players, and good defensive big guys are important but if I get the opportunity to get a Nowitzki or a prime Nash it is much more valuable.

[PistonsFan#21]

So Allen Iverson or Scottie Pippen?



Yeah I'll take the latter.

what about Ben Wallace vs Dirk Nowitzki?

[SCdac]

Give me both. The Mavs weren't doing shit without the defense of Chandler, Marion, Kidd, etc. And the Pistons of the mid-2000's weren't doing shit without the offense of Rip Hamilton, Billups, Sheed, etc. It takes both. In this era of bball, I think defense is the common denominator on all championship teams though. Every team seeks a shot blocking big man, and that's no coincidence. Clutch offense at the end of the game doesn't really matter if your not consistently keeping the other teams score below yours ( via team and individual defense). for instance I would not take a 30 PPG Amare (think 05 Suns) over a 20 PPG Dwight Howard, because in reality solid defense matters and Amare showed that only in glimpses.

[Jacks3]

Offense. You can build a good defense if you have players willing to put in the effort, a coach who stresses it consistently, and a sound scheme. Even if you have don't have particularly great defenders.

See: M.Brown, Riley, Skiles,Van Gundy etc.

You really can't do the same with offense. Plus, a great offensive player can lead even horrible teams to elite offenses (like T-Mac in 03,Kobe 07,Nash 09 etc) but a great defender doesn't guarantee a great defense if he doesn't have guys willing to put in the effort or a good scheme.

Just look at KG in Minnesota. He was playing DPOY caliber defense, yet his teams were mediocre defensively. Often outside the top 10.

[knicksman]

Give me both. The Mavs weren't doing shit without the defense of Chandler, Marion, Kidd, etc. And the Pistons of the mid-2000's weren't doing shit without the offense of Rip Hamilton, Billups, Sheed, etc. It takes both. In this era of bball, I think defense is the common denominator on all championship teams though. Every team seeks a shot blocking big man, and that's no coincidence. Clutch offense at the end of the game doesn't really matter if your not consistently keeping the other teams score below yours ( via team and individual defense). for instance I would not take a 30 PPG Amare (think 05 Suns) over a 20 PPG Dwight Howard, because in reality solid defense matters and Amare showed that only in glimpses.

But which is harder to acquire? a defensive player or an offensive player. you can get tony allens, ben wallace in the 2nd round but you need top 5 picks and pay max salaries on players like melo, amare. If those suns teams only have a center or developed a big man just like dallas, I think they wouldve won by now.

[97 bulls]

Give me both. The Mavs weren't doing shit without the defense of Chandler, Marion, Kidd, etc. And the Pistons of the mid-2000's weren't doing shit without the offense of Rip Hamilton, Billups, Sheed, etc. It takes both. In this era of bball, I think defense is the common denominator on all championship teams though. Every team seeks a shot blocking big man, and that's no coincidence. Clutch offense at the end of the game doesn't really matter if your not consistently keeping the other teams score below yours ( via team and individual defense). for instance I would not take a 30 PPG Amare (think 05 Suns) over a 20 PPG Dwight Howard, because in reality solid defense matters and Amare showed that only in glimpses.
Exactly.

[TheFan]

i think Ben Wallace gives defense a bad name... because people say "hey would you take Ben Wallace over Dirk, because of Defense..."

the thing is that Dirk on his worst night on defense is not as bad as Wallace on his best night on offense, Wallace may shut down the paint but on offense his team plays a 4 vs 5... a 4 vs 5 with a 40-50% ft shooting big man, you just keep fouling Ben and you keep the offense out of sync... Dirk can carry your team on offense, but on defense its still a 5 vs 5.

I think its more fair if we think Defense vs Offense, where Defense is a guy who can hold his ass on offense, same with offense.

now think Dirk vs Howard, instead of Dirk vs Wallace.

plus when you think about it, wallace is a role player, a really good role player, think it... did pistons went crap when Wallace left for chicago? nope they went crap when billups left... that speaks who was the man on that team.

[DMAVS41]

i think Ben Wallace gives defense a bad name... because people say "hey would you take Ben Wallace over Dirk, because of Defense..."

the thing is that Dirk on his worst night on defense is not as bad as Wallace on his best night on offense, Wallace may shut down the paint but on offense his team plays a 4 vs 5... a 4 vs 5 with 40-50% ft shooting guy... Dirk can carry your team on offense, but on defense its still a 5 vs 5.

I think its more fair if we think Defense vs Offense, where Defense is a guy who can hold his ass on offense, same with offense.

now think Dirk vs Howard, instead of Dirk vs Wallace.

plus when you think about it, wallace is a role player, a really good role player, think it... did pistons went crap when Wallace left for chicago? nope they went crap when billups left... that speaks who was the man on that team.

but that is the point. even with Howard's far superior defense/rebounding...its still debatable on who the better player is right now.

so you are talking about the best defender in the league who happens to play center (easily the highest impact defensive position) and a very good offensive player that gives you 23/14/2 a night on near 60% from the field

and its debatable as to which player is better. i think that answers the question.

[DJmicah]

Well Dwight Howard is the DPOY every year...how many championships?
Kobe is a VERY skilled offensive player...What About Him?

[TheFan]

but that is the point. even with Howard's far superior defense/rebounding...its still debatable on who the better player is right now.

so you are talking about the best defender in the league who happens to play center (easily the highest impact defensive position) and a very good offensive player that gives you 23/14/2 a night on near 60% from the field

and its debatable as to which player is better. i think that answers the question.

well, youre right Howard has become a beast on offense... but even when Howard was grabbing boards/blocking shots and Turkuglu was doing the shot jacking, the Magic did great with howard as the main piece.

I agree that a Kobe Bryant/Nowitzki is more important, because the league is very offense oriented, but a big man shutting down can get the job done, its lakers length advantage that makes the Lakers not Kobe.

[GoldNugg21]

I think it's pretty evident that on an individual level, you take the offensive player. Just look at a top 50 NBA player list, and tell me how many of those guys were known for their defense. Russell obviously, but he had the luxury of being surrounded by excellent offensive players throughout his career, and was exceptional on that end himself. Rodman, but he's pretty far down the list in comparison to players like Barkley and Malone.

Simply put, a team effort will outdo a great individual effort on defense every time. A great big man defender certainly has a great impact, but without a team effort, you still won't have a great defensive team. A team with no great offensive players can still be a great offensive team for about 40 minutes, but once crunch time comes around, if you don't have a great offensive player that can bail you out on tough possesions and take a majority of the oppositions focus, taking the pressure off of other players, it's difficult going. The post Melo Nuggets were a great example. They were every bit as good as the Thunder in that series until the end of games. They just couldn't find anyone to make a tough basket, while the Thunder had Durant to bail them out. That great offensive player was the difference.

I can't think of a situation where the reverse was true. I'm sure they happen here and there, but more often then not, a great offensive player will have a bigger impact, especially late in games, then a great defensive player. Defense is much more of a team effort in the NBA than offense, because with the athletes, the overall level of defense is good enough that when focused, it's almost impossible for the offense to run classic sets and get good shots consistently. Thats why it comes down to players who can make tough, big shots.

[DMAVS41]

I think it's pretty evident that on an individual level, you take the offensive player. Just look at a top 50 NBA player list, and tell me how many of those guys were known for their defense. Russell obviously, but he had the luxury of being surrounded by excellent offensive players throughout his career, and was exceptional on that end himself. Rodman, but he's pretty far down the list in comparison to players like Barkley and Malone.

Simply put, a team effort will outdo a great individual effort on defense every time. A great big man defender certainly has a great impact, but without a team effort, you still won't have a great defensive team. A team with no great offensive players can still be a great offensive team for about 40 minutes, but once crunch time comes around, if you don't have a great offensive player that can bail you out on tough possesions and take a majority of the oppositions focus, taking the pressure off of other players, it's difficult going. The post Melo Nuggets were a great example. They were every bit as good as the Thunder in that series until the end of games. They just couldn't find anyone to make a tough basket, while the Thunder had Durant to bail them out. That great offensive player was the difference.

I can't think of a situation where the reverse was true. I'm sure they happen here and there, but more often then not, a great offensive player will have a bigger impact, especially late in games, then a great defensive player. Defense is much more of a team effort in the NBA than offense, because with the athletes, the overall level of defense is good enough that when focused, it's almost impossible for the offense to run classic sets and get good shots consistently. Thats why it comes down to players who can make tough, big shots.

This is pretty much exactly how I feel.

I think the Howard vs Dirk thing pretty much ends the debate. For those that favor defense....then on paper Howard should be significantly better than Dirk. He's the best defender in the league and he's a center...so he plays the highest impact defensive position. He's also a much better rebounder. He also gives you 23 points on high efficiency and often commands a double. So not only is he the best defender in the league, but he's also one of the best offensive players as well.

And even with all of the above. Dirk vs Howard is a debate. I think Dirk was better last year, but obviously I have no issue with someone taking Howard.

But the very fact that its debatable pretty much proves that the skills Dirk provides and the impact he has through his offense and late game play is more significant.

[Jacks3]

but a big man shutting down can get the job done, its lakers length advantage that makes the Lakers not Kobe.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

The 08-10 Lakers won primary because of their dominant offense and Kobe was by far the biggest reason for that. They're defense wasn't even good in the 2010 PS (109 ORTG) and they still won it all due to Kobe's ridiculous play (especially after having his knee drained) and a great offense.

[Jacks3]

I think it's pretty evident that on an individual level, you take the offensive player. Just look at a top 50 NBA player list, and tell me how many of those guys were known for their defense. Russell obviously, but he had the luxury of being surrounded by excellent offensive players throughout his career, and was exceptional on that end himself. Rodman, but he's pretty far down the list in comparison to players like Barkley and Malone.

Simply put, a team effort will outdo a great individual effort on defense every time. A great big man defender certainly has a great impact, but without a team effort, you still won't have a great defensive team. A team with no great offensive players can still be a great offensive team for about 40 minutes, but once crunch time comes around, if you don't have a great offensive player that can bail you out on tough possesions and take a majority of the oppositions focus, taking the pressure off of other players, it's difficult going. The post Melo Nuggets were a great example. They were every bit as good as the Thunder in that series until the end of games. They just couldn't find anyone to make a tough basket, while the Thunder had Durant to bail them out. That great offensive player was the difference.

I can't think of a situation where the reverse was true. I'm sure they happen here and there, but more often then not, a great offensive player will have a bigger impact, especially late in games, then a great defensive player. Defense is much more of a team effort in the NBA than offense, because with the athletes, the overall level of defense is good enough that when focused, it's almost impossible for the offense to run classic sets and get good shots consistently. Thats why it comes down to players who can make tough, big shots.
Great post.

[97 bulls]

Offense. You can build a good defense if you have players willing to put in the effort, a coach who stresses it consistently, and a sound scheme. Even if you have don't have particularly great defenders.

See: M.Brown, Riley, Skiles,Van Gundy etc.

You really can't do the same with offense. Plus, a great offensive player can lead even horrible teams to elite offenses (like T-Mac in 03,Kobe 07,Nash 09 etc) but a great defender doesn't guarantee a great defense if he doesn't have guys willing to put in the effort or a good scheme.

Just look at KG in Minnesota. He was playing DPOY caliber defense, yet his teams were mediocre defensively. Often outside the top 10.
But do you realize how difficult it is to get a team that commited to playing defense? And most of the teams and coaches you named have or had some pretty good defenders on them.

And there have been players that were more defensive oriented that have done much better than the players you named with even less talent. Scottie Pippen in 95, Jason Kidd in 04 and 05 I believe it was. Those teams didn't have big time scorers.but they did far better than the players you mentioned

[97 bulls]

but that is the point. even with Howard's far superior defense/rebounding...its still debatable on who the better player is right now.

so you are talking about the best defender in the league who happens to play center (easily the highest impact defensive position) and a very good offensive player that gives you 23/14/2 a night on near 60% from the field

and its debatable as to which player is better. i think that answers the question.
Ok, scrap the centers. Let's just look at wing players. And under similar circumstances. Kobe, nash, and tmac didn't do any better than kidd, pippen and payton. The main reason thhe lakers won was because no team could match up with them down low.

[SCdac]

But which is harder to acquire? a defensive player or an offensive player. you can get tony allens, ben wallace in the 2nd round but you need top 5 picks and pay max salaries on players like melo, amare. If those suns teams only have a center or developed a big man just like dallas, I think they wouldve won by now.

But what exactly does being offensively elite guarantee you? George Gervin, Kevin Durant, Gilbert Arenas, Carmelo, McGrady, etc, what have they earned to make you say have that kind of prime-time scorer goes hand in hand with a championship?... Players like Jordan, Duncan, Kareem, etc, were all great defensive players on top of being great offensive players.... Obviously it's a team game, it's shortsighted to pin accomplishments (or lack thereof) solely on one player. But some of these players give a team a "head start" so to speak, by being (or becoming) great defensive players. If I'm a GM, I'm looking for that head start, which is why I, and most people, fully understood Greg Oden being picked over Durant at the time. Yes, every winning team is going to need an elite offensive player, but with out a defensive presence of some kind to compensate, it's useless because defense in the playoffs is all-important. Every team has to be balanced, so at some point in this discussion we're just splitting hairs, but I lean towards defense more than offense... when talking championships... not necessarily "Hall of Fame", which is slightly different IMO, more of a "life time achievement" award kind of thing.

[Jacks3]

The 08-10 Lakers won primary because of their dominant offense and Kobe was by far the biggest reason for that. They're defense wasn't even good in the 2010 PS (109 ORTG) and they still won it all due to Kobe's ridiculous play (especially after having his knee drained) and a great offense.

Yeah, they won it all due to Bynum's epic 6/4 averages (dude didn't even play in 2008 and they still made the Finals), or Odom "Mr. Inconsistent". :oldlol:

[Jacks3]

But do you realize how difficult it is to get a team that commited to playing defense? And most of the teams and coaches you named have or had some pretty good defenders on them.
Considering those coaches I listed led very solid offenses wherever they went, no. I don't think it's particularly hard to get players committed assuming they're not a bunch of malcontents or if there's just horrible chemistry in the locker-room.

None of these teams had particularly great defensive talent and they were still very solid defensively:
2007 Bulls with Skiles (#1 ranked defense)
2010 Bulls with Spoelstra (#6 ranked defense)
2010 Bucks with Skiles(#2 ranked defense, they were #15 the year before he got there)
2007 Cavs (4th ranked defense)
2009 Bobcats (7th ranked defense, #20 before Brown year before Brown arrived)
2010 Bobcats (#1 ranked defense)

Etc, etc

The fact is, coaches and effort can make a HUGE impact on a team's defense even if they don't have much talent, because defense is all about effort, execution, discipline, schemes, focus. Those are things you can teach.

Offense is much more difficult to create. You need the inherent talent for that.





And there have been players that were more defensive oriented that have done much better than the players you named with even less talent. Scottie Pippen in 95, Jason Kidd in 04 and 05 I believe it was. Those teams didn't have big time scorers.but they did far better than the players you mentioned
This is such a sweeping, broad statement. I mean, Kidd in NJ played in perhaps the worst conference ever, and it's not like he had supporting casts anywhere near as bad as the guys I listed. You have to look at the context.

[nycelt84]

I think it's pretty evident that on an individual level, you take the offensive player. Just look at a top 50 NBA player list, and tell me how many of those guys were known for their defense. Russell obviously, but he had the luxury of being surrounded by excellent offensive players throughout his career, and was exceptional on that end himself.



That's not particularly true. The players around Russell were not that good offensively especially after Cousy retired and the Celtics generally were the worst offensive team in the league for much of the 60's.

[97 bulls]

Considering those coaches I listed led very solid offenses wherever they went, no. I don't think it's particularly hard to get players committed assuming they're not a bunch of malcontents or if there's just horrible chemistry in the locker-room.

None of these teams had particularly great defensive talent and they were still very solid defensively:
2007 Bulls with Skiles (#1 ranked defense)
2010 Bulls with Spoelstra (#6 ranked defense)
2010 Bucks with Skiles(#2 ranked defense, they were #15 the year before he got there)
2007 Cavs (4th ranked defense)
2009 Bobcats (7th ranked defense, #20 before Brown year before Brown arrived)
2010 Bobcats (#1 ranked defense)

Etc, etc

The fact is, coaches and effort can make a HUGE impact on a team's defense even if they don't have much talent, because defense is all about effort, execution, discipline, schemes, focus. Those are things you can teach.

Offense is much more difficult to create. You need the inherent talent for that.





This is such a sweeping, broad statement. I mean, Kidd in NJ played in perhaps the worst conference ever, and it's not like he had supporting casts anywhere near as bad as the guys I listed. You have to look at the context.
The Bulls in 07 had a team full of good defensive players. Deng, Hinrich, Wallace, Nocioni, P.J. Brown, Tyrus Thomas, Thabo Sefalosha all were very good defensive players.

The 09 Cavs had James, Hughes, Big Z, Varejo, and Eric Snow

The bobcats had Jackson,, Wallace, Mohamed, Chandler, Felton, Tyrus Thomas.

All had very good records. And minus the cavs (lebron james) none of the teams you mentioned had big time scorers.

And what was so broad about the players I listed? You gave a list of playerrs you feel support your view, I gave you a list of players that support my view.

You say kidd shouldn't count because he played in a conference that was weak at the time. But so did mcgrady. There really isn't much of a difference.

[Odinn]

It depends on defensive player's offensive impact.

If we are talking about something like Carmelo Anthony vs. Dennis Rodman/Ben Wallace, without a doubt it's Carmelo.

[97 bulls]

but that is the point. even with Howard's far superior defense/rebounding...its still debatable on who the better player is right now.

so you are talking about the best defender in the league who happens to play center (easily the highest impact defensive position) and a very good offensive player that gives you 23/14/2 a night on near 60% from the field

and its debatable as to which player is better. i think that answers the question.
Lol that's not debatable. Id be willing to bet that if every GM had to pick between howard and nowitzki, howard would win in a landslide. Dirk is a flavor of the month. He has always been considered one of the best players in the league, but its been only this year that he's broke top 5. And that's due largely to the mavs winning this years championship. While howard has really been no lower than top 5 since he's been in the league.

[DMAVS41]

Ok, scrap the centers. Let's just look at wing players. And under similar circumstances. Kobe, nash, and tmac didn't do any better than kidd, pippen and payton. The main reason thhe lakers won was because no team could match up with them down low.

well, agree to disagree. kobe was simply just a better player than pippen. i think nash was better than payton. and i'd take a healthy t-mac over kidd.

but really, that is shifting the argument a little because all of those defensive guys you mentioned were also excellent offensive players as well.

i do think kidd was better than nash overall, but nash is tough because he is arguably one of the worst defensive players in the history of the league. And Kidd is also a great overall offensive player to go along with his defense/rebounding.

But again, nobody would laugh you out of the room if you said Nash was a better player than both kidd and payton....and that defies your logic of defense being more important individually. Because if that was the case, two elite defenders like Kidd and Payton that also are very good to great offensively should be significantly better than one of the most inept defenders ever.

Not the case though. Its debatable.

[DMAVS41]

Lol that's not debatable. Id be willing to bet that if every GM had to pick between howard and nowitzki, howard would win in a landslide. Dirk is a flavor of the month. He has always been considered one of the best players in the league, but its been only this year that he's broke top 5. And that's due largely to the mavs winning this years championship. While howard has really been no lower than top 5 since he's been in the league.

uh no. simply no.

why do you keep holding onto these bs perceptions? who cares what people thought. they were clearly wrong. i think dirk has been better than howard pretty much every year they've been in the league.

and if owners/gm's had to pick howard or dirk for last year....i bet almost all of them would pick Dirk.

remember when howard made the finals in 09 and his team had chances to win those two games that went to OT? remember when Howard couldn't make a free throw or carry the team offensively late? yep...that is what we are talking about.

don't give me his bs about how dirk vs howard is not debatable. that is straight up nonsense and you know it.

[97 bulls]

well, agree to disagree. kobe was simply just a better player than pippen. i think nash was better than payton. and i'd take a healthy t-mac over kidd.

but really, that is shifting the argument a little because all of those defensive guys you mentioned were also excellent offensive players as well.

i do think kidd was better than nash overall, but nash is tough because he is arguably one of the worst defensive players in the history of the league. And Kidd is also a great overall offensive player to go along with his defense/rebounding.

But again, nobody would laugh you out of the room if you said Nash was a better player than both kidd and payton....and that defies your logic of defense being more important individually. Because if that was the case, two elite defenders like Kidd and Payton that also are very good to great offensively should be significantly better than one of the most inept defenders ever.

Not the case though. Its debatable.
But the players you mentioned aren't one dimensional either. Even nash who can make plays for himself as well as others. There is no one player that you can build a team around just based on them putting the ball in the basket and they are good at anything else. Those players become 6th men. Ben Gordon, Andrew Toney, Vinnie Johnson, Jason Terry. And their polar opposites would be guys like bobby jones, bruce bowen, michael cooper. Guys like the ones I listed first, are great for putting the ball in the basket. But not much else.

And again, when you say who's better. Your ranking them based on accomplishments. Not talent. Then, to compund your folly, you take those accomplishments and translate it to one on one play I.E. this play has an mvp and this player doesn't so the latter isn't as good. It just doesn't work like that. I mean, sure you can say that when ranking players. But you can confuse ranking players with whose more talented.

You know why the nba/players will never hold 1v1 competitions during the all-star game? Because some nobody 12th man will end up beating kobe bryant and lebron james and it'll throw everyone ranking system out of whack.

[DMAVS41]

But the players you mentioned aren't one dimensional either. Even nash who can make plays for himself as well as others. There is no one player that you can build a team around just based on them putting the ball in the basket and they are good at anything else. Those players become 6th men. Ben Gordon, Andrew Toney, Vinnie Johnson, Jason Terry. And their polar opposites would be guys like bobby jones, bruce bowen, michael cooper. Guys like the ones I listed first, are great for putting the ball in the basket. But not much else.

And again, when you say who's better. Your ranking them based on accomplishments. Not talent. Then, to compund your folly, you take those accomplishments and translate it to one on one play I.E. this play has an mvp and this player doesn't so the latter isn't as good. It just doesn't work like that. I mean, sure you can say that when ranking players. But you can confuse ranking players with whose more talented.

You know why the nba/players will never hold 1v1 competitions during the all-star game? Because some nobody 12th man will end up beating kobe bryant and lebron james and it'll throw everyone ranking system out of whack.

i'm not ranking them by accomplishments. i just disagree with you. i think kobe is simply a better player than pippen. you don't. that is ultimately the perfect breakdown of this discussion.

you think that pippen's all around play and better defense trumps kobe's ability to dominate games with his scoring and late game play. we've had this talk before. i could not disagree more. the example last time was you saying that pippen was a better basketball player than magic. another great example of this. i just disagree. i think what magic brought was simply more beneficial to winning than what pippen did.

i don't think nash is better than payton because of accomplishments. i think so because i think nash is a better player and i'd pick him first to play pg on my team. same with kobe over pippen.....kidd vs tmac is a little closer for me, but i'd take tmac at his best over kidd at his probably...but its close. hard to say.

i'm not discounting defense and all around play, i just think these elite offensive players that we are talking about have more value.

and i'd add that its why that is reaching here...you use popular opinion constantly....and then turn around and claim that pippen was a better player than both magic and kobe. LOL...i find it very difficult to have this debate with someone that watched all three of them play and would take pippen first. doesn't mean i'm right or anything....i just feel like we are watching two different games if you honestly believe that.

[97 bulls]

uh no. simply no.

why do you keep holding onto these bs perceptions? who cares what people thought. they were clearly wrong. i think dirk has been better than howard pretty much every year they've been in the league.

and if owners/gm's had to pick howard or dirk for last year....i bet almost all of them would pick Dirk.

remember when howard made the finals in 09 and his team had chances to win those two games that went to OT? remember when Howard couldn't make a free throw or carry the team offensively late? yep...that is what we are talking about.

don't give me his bs about how dirk vs howard is not debatable. that is straight up nonsense and you know it.
Well Ft shooting is defintely a weakness of Howard. But please don't bring up howards short commings and leave out nowitzkis. Your so big on having players that are clutch, what happened to the dirk led mavs in 06? Or vs golden state? Why didn't he shoot those teams to victory? Just to refresh, in the 06 finals, a series that the mavs had homecourt and were favored to win. What happend in game 5? When with the series tied 2-2, terry scored 35, josh howard had 25 and dirk had 20 on 42% shooting. The mavs lost by 1 pt. Or how bout game 6? The mavs lost by 3. Where was that clutch shooting then?

Or what about the following year when the dirk led 67 win mavs got their ass handed to them by the 8th seeded warriors. And even if you feel the warriors were better than an 8th seed, they sure as hell weren't 67 win/ 1st seed better, which the mavs were.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle.

[knicksman]

But what exactly does being offensively elite guarantee you? George Gervin, Kevin Durant, Gilbert Arenas, Carmelo, McGrady, etc, what have they earned to make you say have that kind of prime-time scorer goes hand in hand with a championship?... Players like Jordan, Duncan, Kareem, etc, were all great defensive players on top of being great offensive players.... Obviously it's a team game, it's shortsighted to pin accomplishments (or lack thereof) solely on one player. But some of these players give a team a "head start" so to speak, by being (or becoming) great defensive players. If I'm a GM, I'm looking for that head start, which is why I, and most people, fully understood Greg Oden being picked over Durant at the time. Yes, every winning team is going to need an elite offensive player, but with out a defensive presence of some kind to compensate, it's useless because defense in the playoffs is all-important. Every team has to be balanced, so at some point in this discussion we're just splitting hairs, but I lean towards defense more than offense... when talking championships... not necessarily "Hall of Fame", which is slightly different IMO, more of a "life time achievement" award kind of thing.


you can also say with defensive players. what has mutombo, mourning, howard done? Or if jordan, hakeem,duncan, were never great offensive players, do you think they have won. Why cant chandler win 50+ wins in charlotte while dirk can win 50+ every season. You need both but when it comes to skills, it is easier to play defense thats why they can be gotten in the 2nd round. which makes offensive players harder to acquire, so ill go with offense..

[NJW1247]

what about Ben Wallace vs Dirk Nowitzki?


Dirk Nowitzki is a great dribbler? Ben Wallace can guard 4 out of 5 positions?



:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[DMAVS41]

Well Ft shooting is defintely a weakness of Howard. But please don't bring up howards short commings and leave out nowitzkis. Your so big on having players that are clutch, what happened to the dirk led mavs in 06? Or vs golden state? Why didn't he shoot those teams to victory? Just to refresh, in the 06 finals, a series that the mavs had homecourt and were favored to win. What happend in game 5? When with the series tied 2-2, terry scored 35, josh howard had 25 and dirk had 20 on 42% shooting. The mavs lost by 1 pt. Or how bout game 6? The mavs lost by 3. Where was that clutch shooting then?

Or what about the following year when the dirk led 67 win mavs got their ass handed to them by the 8th seeded warriors. And even if you feel the warriors were better than an 8th seed, they sure as hell weren't 67 win/ 1st seed better, which the mavs were.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle.

its clear you didn't watch game 5....lol. Dirk was amazing down the stretch and actually made a potential game winning shot over Shaq with 9 seconds left in OT.

Dirk was absolutely clutch.

And you are confusing things. I'm not saying Dirk is way better than Howard. I'm saying its absolutely debatable as to who the better player was last year and the years before. I lean towards Dirk....but have no issue with somebody taking Howard.

Doesn't that throw your entire premise away though? If defense is more important, then Howard should be easily better than Dirk as Howard is by far the best defender in the league. And he's very good offensively as well.

And sorry...it is debatable. So clearly something Dirk does has very high value. And that would be his ability to carry a team scoring wise and take over late in games.

Please don't try to give me a history lesson on Dirk. That isn't what this is about...but regardless, you dont' even know what actually went down in game 5 of that series. Get a clue.

[SCdac]

and if owners/gm's had to pick howard or dirk for last year....i bet almost all of them would pick Dirk.

that's probably not true.

Everybody knows Dirk is a super star and one of the best scorers in the league, but all things being equal (as in, the teams they play for), Dwight probably has more "value", and this is something GM's thought going into the 10-11 season... and I don't think it's all about being younger, either.

I'm not saying "put Howard on the Mavs and they'd do better", I'm saying, your idea of what you think others value is... off.

This is from the 2010-2011 NBA GM survey:

Who will win the 2010-11 MVP?

1. Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City 66.7%
2. Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers 25.9%
Also receiving votes:
Dwight Howard, Orlando; LeBron James, Miami
- Last year: LeBron James 69.0%

If you were starting a franchise today and could sign any player in the NBA, who would it be?

1. Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City 55.6%
2. LeBron James, Miami 25.9%
3. Kobe Bryant, Lakers; Dwight Howard, Magic 7.4%
5. Dwyane Wade, Miami 3.7%
- Last year: LeBron James 78.6%

Which player forces opposing coaches to make the most adjustments [in the here and now]?

1. Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers 35.7%
2. LeBron James, Miami 28.6%
3. Dwight Howard, Orlando 17.9%
4. Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City 10.7%
Also receiving votes:
Chris Paul, New Orleans; Dwyane Wade, Miami
- Last year: LeBron James 39.3%

2010-2011 end of the season MVP voting:

1. Derrick Rose
2. Dwight Howard (DPOY, All-NBA 1st team, All-NBA Defense 1st team)
3. Lebron James
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Kevin Durant
6. Dirk Nowitzki (All-NBA 2nd team)

[97 bulls]

i'm not ranking them by accomplishments. i just disagree with you. i think kobe is simply a better player than pippen. you don't. that is ultimately the perfect breakdown of this discussion.

you think that pippen's all around play and better defense trumps kobe's ability to dominate games with his scoring and late game play. we've had this talk before. i could not disagree more. the example last time was you saying that pippen was a better basketball player than magic. another great example of this. i just disagree. i think what magic brought was simply more beneficial to winning than what pippen did.

i don't think nash is better than payton because of accomplishments. i think so because i think nash is a better player and i'd pick him first to play pg on my team. same with kobe over pippen.....kidd vs tmac is a little closer for me, but i'd take tmac at his best over kidd at his probably...but its close. hard to say.

i'm not discounting defense and all around play, i just think these elite offensive players that we are talking about have more value.

and i'd add that its why that is reaching here...you use popular opinion constantly....and then turn around and claim that pippen was a better player than both magic and kobe. LOL...i find it very difficult to have this debate with someone that watched all three of them play and would take pippen first. doesn't mean i'm right or anything....i just feel like we are watching two different games if you honestly believe that.
You asked me a question and I answered it. If you would've asked me who is the consensus best between whoever, then id answer accordingly.

Like I've said before, how can you say whose better? The kobe, magics, jordans.... they had the best talent in the league around them. I just don't see how anyone of that caliber and that talent couldn't win with similar talent. I just don't see how or why if you don't replace a raw kenyon martin and a young richard jefferson with let's say prime shawn kemp and prime gerald wallace along with an upgrade at center, the nets don't win at least one championship.

Even with pippen. Just upgrading that 94 team wiith mitch richmond in my opinion gets them over the top. They lost iin 7 to the knicks who lost in 7 to the eventual champion rockets.

The payton led soncis lost to arguably the greatest team ever.

On the other end of the spectrum. Kobe was able to shoot low 40% as well as dirk and they get all this pub? THEY HAD THE BEST TEAM. That's all I've ever tried to say. They won not because they themselves were really any better than other players, they just had the best team. I'm still waiting for kobe to will a team to a championship.

[DMAVS41]

that's probably not true.

Everybody knows Dirk is a super star and one of the best scorers in the league, but all things being equal (as in, the teams they play for), Dwight probably has more "value", and this is something GM's thought going into the 10-11 season... and I don't think it's all about being younger, either.

I'm not saying "put Howard on the Mavs and they'd do better", I'm saying, your idea of what you think others value is... off.

This is from the 2010-2011 NBA GM survey:

Who will win the 2010-11 MVP?

1. Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City 66.7%
2. Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers 25.9%
Also receiving votes:
Dwight Howard, Orlando; LeBron James, Miami
- Last year: LeBron James 69.0%

If you were starting a franchise today and could sign any player in the NBA, who would it be?

1. Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City 55.6%
2. LeBron James, Miami 25.9%
3. Kobe Bryant, Lakers; Dwight Howard, Magic 7.4%
5. Dwyane Wade, Miami 3.7%
- Last year: LeBron James 78.6%

Which player forces opposing coaches to make the most adjustments [in the here and now]?

1. Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers 35.7%
2. LeBron James, Miami 28.6%
3. Dwight Howard, Orlando 17.9%
4. Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City 10.7%
Also receiving votes:
Chris Paul, New Orleans; Dwyane Wade, Miami
- Last year: LeBron James 39.3%

2010-2011 end of the season MVP voting:

1. Derrick Rose
2. Dwight Howard (DPOY, All-NBA 1st team, All-NBA Defense 1st team)
3. Lebron James
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Kevin Durant
6. Dirk Nowitzki (All-NBA 2nd team)

I meant after watching the season play out. Not before the season. After watching last year play out...which we all did. I bet most would take Dirk over Howard....for last year. Not for the future or anything.

But that really isn't the point. Howard was definitely better this year than he was in 09. Dirk was probably at his best overall as a player in 09. Take a poll after the 09 season? Howard wins it for all the reasons I think Dirk would get the nod after this year.

The point is simple. If you gave me the choice between Howard and Dirk to build a team around to make a run at the title at the start of the playoffs. I'd take Dirk. I have no issue with somebody taking Howard though. But its debatable. Its not like Dirk is way better than Howard or vice versa.

And that pretty much destroys 97 Bulls argument right there. How could it be debatable if defense is more important? Doesn't make any type of sense logically speaking.

[DMAVS41]

You asked me a question and I answered it. If you would've asked me who is the consensus best between whoever, then id answer accordingly.

Like I've said before, how can you say whose better? The kobe, magics, jordans.... they had the best talent in the league around them. I just don't see how anyone of that caliber and that talent couldn't win with similar talent. I just don't see how or why if you don't replace a raw kenyon martin and a young richard jefferson with let's say prime shawn kemp and prime gerald wallace along with an upgrade at center, the nets don't win at least one championship.

Even with pippen. Just upgrading that 94 team wiith mitch richmond in my opinion gets them over the top. They lost iin 7 to the knicks who lost in 7 to the eventual champion rockets.

The payton led soncis lost to arguably the greatest team ever.

On the other end of the spectrum. Kobe was able to shoot low 40% as well as dirk and they get all this pub? THEY HAD THE BEST TEAM. That's all I've ever tried to say. They won not because they themselves were really any better than other players, they just had the best team. I'm still waiting for kobe to will a team to a championship.

And this is where we disagree.

It boils down to Pippen ultimately for you. He's the best example of this. A player that can defend 4 positions. Probably the best perimeter defender all things considered ever.

You think he's better than guys like Dirk, Magic, and Kobe. I could not disagree more. We've been over this time and time again. Neither one of us will budge.

I will say though, that if popular opinion is such a big part of your arguments...i don't understand the logic of supporting Pippen over the like of Kobe and Magic. Nobody would agree with you. Can't have it both ways.

[Jacks3]

He thinks Pippen is better than Magic?

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[DMAVS41]

another example. barkley vs pippen.

i think barkely was clearly the superior player. who was better in your opinion?

[97 bulls]

you can also say with defensive players. what has mutombo, mourning, howard done? Or if jordan, hakeem,duncan, were never great offensive players, do you think they have won. Why cant chandler win 50+ wins in charlotte while dirk can win 50+ every season. You need both but when it comes to skills, it is easier to play defense thats why they can be gotten in the 2nd round. which makes offensive players harder to acquire, so ill go with offense..
Again, nobody wins games and nobody loses games on their own. Dirk has routinely had the best talent around him on a yearly basis.

[DMAVS41]

Again, nobody wins games and nobody loses games on their own. Dirk has routinely had the best talent around him on a yearly basis.

he's had good talent...hardly the best talent. in fact, Dirk has never had the best supporting cast in the league.

LOL...at best talent on a yearly basis. what a joke.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Generally I would take an elite defensive center. But there are exceptions on both sides.

Obviously I'd take Mike over Dikembe but I'd like to take like a Duncan over Kobe.

My philosophy on the game isn't necessarily offense v defense, it's more rebounds. I'm concerned with rebounds I believe it's the most important facet. So if I have a big body that can lock-down the paint, alter shots, and devour rebounds I would tend to lean towards that type of player.

But they'd have to be able to be efficient on the offense. Same for my great offensive players, they'd be at least decent two ways.

[knicksman]

Again, nobody wins games and nobody loses games on their own. Dirk has routinely had the best talent around him on a yearly basis.

yes but best players still has huge impact on the game. Maybe you just think that coz theyre winning more compared to ben in chicago or chandler before dallas. If dirk didnt win 50+, you would say he had bad supporting casts.

[97 bulls]

And this is where we disagree.

It boils down to Pippen ultimately for you. He's the best example of this. A player that can defend 4 positions. Probably the best perimeter defender all things considered ever.

You think he's better than guys like Dirk, Magic, and Kobe. I could not disagree more. We've been over this time and time again. Neither one of us will budge.

I will say though, that if popular opinion is such a big part of your arguments...i don't understand the logic of supporting Pippen over the like of Kobe and Magic. Nobody would agree with you. Can't have it both ways.
It doesn't boil down to pippen. You want to believe that. I'm not trying to get into another pippen vs whoever debate with you. I've stated my case as to why I feel the way I di with pippen. Would I rank him over kobe, magic etc? No its an unfortunate part of sports. He just dint accomplish enough on his own outside of jordans shadow. But considering that in the two years he had out of jordans shadow, 3rd in the mvp voting in 94 and 2nd in dpoy voting in 95. Id say given 5 years on his own or if jordan never comes back and the bulls do build around him he could've won an mvp and a dpoy award as well as a championship. He was damn close.

[97 bulls]

yes but best players still has huge impact on the game. Maybe you just think that coz theyre winning more compared to ben in chicago or chandler before dallas. If dirk didnt win 50+, you would say he had bad supporting casts.
First, I believe wallace is overrated. Second, I honestly believe that if a team can't win without a certain players like the mavs with chandler, then he deserves full credit for his role on the team.

[DMAVS41]

It doesn't boil down to pippen. You want to believe that. I'm not trying to get into another pippen vs whoever debate with you. I've stated my case as to why I feel the way I di with pippen. Would I rank him over kobe, magic etc? No its an unfortunate part of sports. He just dint accomplish enough on his own outside of jordans shadow. But considering that in the two years he had out of jordans shadow, 3rd in the mvp voting in 94 and 2nd in dpoy voting in 95. Id say given 5 years on his own or if jordan never comes back and the bulls do build around him he could've won an mvp and a dpoy award as well as a championship. He was damn close.

its not about ranking...its about which player you feel is better for this.

and it does boil down to pippen. he's the perfect example for this scenario. how many other players out there all time can guard 4 positions as well as pippen? i can't think of any really. rodman in his younger days. bobby jones. you said you didn't want to talk about centers because they only example you could come up with was bill russell.

so it sounds like this is just in theory but when asked to give examples you really can't.

magic vs pippen or barkley vs pippen is pretty much the perfect debate for this. dirk vs howard is good as well, but you want that to be about stuff that really isn't relevant.

barkley played little to no defense. pippen is one of the best defensive players of all time. it fits the hypothetical. who do you think was the better player. forget that ranking non sense. just tell me who you think the better player was. you have to start a team and you get to pick.

[97 bulls]

another example. barkley vs pippen.

i think barkely was clearly the superior player. who was better in your opinion?
You know... I agree that barkley was more talented than pippen. It was barkleys mindset and bad work ethic as well as his approach to defense.

[97 bulls]

It depends on defensive player's offensive impact.

If we are talking about something like Carmelo Anthony vs. Dennis Rodman/Ben Wallace, without a doubt it's Carmelo.
Really? Your a Spurs fan. Do you remember what happened in 95 when dennis rodman missed the first few months of the season? The spurs went 7-9. When he came back the spurs went 40-9 in the games he played in.

The following year, he joined the bulls and they procede to set the record for mosst wins in a season and win a championship.

If this isn't impact, I don't know what is

[knicksman]

First, I believe wallace is overrated. Second, I honestly believe that if a team can't win without a certain players like the mavs with chandler, then he deserves full credit for his role on the team.

but that doesnt mean that hes more impactful than dirk.

[iamgine]

That made me think. Regarding Dirk vs Chandler.

Did Chandler has simply less impact than Dirk or did he has different but equal impact?

[DMAVS41]

That made me think. Regarding Dirk vs Chandler.

Did Chandler has simply less impact than Dirk or did he has different but equal impact?

Not even close. Dirk is probably 3 times more important than Chandler....maybe more.

That is my problem with discussions like this. A 10/10 player that plays pretty good defense is being glorified way too much.

Build a team around Chandler as your best player? You are lucky to make the playoffs.

[DMAVS41]

You know... I agree that barkley was more talented than pippen. It was barkleys mindset and bad work ethic as well as his approach to defense.

You aren't answering the question. This is what I don't understand about you. You make these claims and then when put to an actual basketball question you don't answer.

Who is the better player? Pippen or Barkley? And if you don't want to use Pippen...pick another great defensive player like Jones or Rodman....or anyone really you thinks fits the hypothetical of being able to defend 4 positions at an elite level.

[97 bulls]

You aren't answering the question. This is what I don't understand about you. You make these claims and then when put to an actual basketball question you don't answer.

Who is the better player? Pippen or Barkley? And if you don't want to use Pippen...pick another great defensive player like Jones or Rodman....or anyone really you thinks fits the hypothetical of being able to defend 4 positions at an elite level.
I think barkley is a more talented basketball player skillwise and even athleticly. But he's a malcontent, had a bad work ethic, didn't stay in the best of shape, and didn't take defense seriously. I wouldn't pick him over pippen to start my team knowing this. He's a bad leader.

The same goes for rodman. If he didn't have so many off the court issues, he'd be ranked higher. And I'm talking top 20. Id make the argument that he was the best player on that 90 piston championship team once he became the starter in the middle of the season. He avg about 17 rbds when he became starter and won the dpoy award and was clearly their best defender.

And again, players like bobby jones are specialiists. The bizarro version of a player like him would be a player like jason terry. He scores and that's it. He doesn't play much defense, he doesn't rebound and he doesn't do much passing.

[97 bulls]

Not even close. Dirk is probably 3 times more important than Chandler....maybe more.

That is my problem with discussions like this. A 10/10 player that plays pretty good defense is being glorified way too much.

Build a team around Chandler as your best player? You are lucky to make the playoffs.
Lol a player like chandler makes it easy for dirk to shoot 42% in a finals and win convincingly. And truth be told, it wasn't just chandler or nowitzki. That championship was a team effort. They don't win without marion or terry contributions either.

Basketball is a team sport. Trying to dismiss players roles and determine order of importance is and always has been silly.

When we say who would you build a team around, pick whoever, but you know to build a winner, your gonna need to add to key pieces. Just think about a pies with no filling and sugar.

What you really are asking, is on a bad team, who would put up the better stats? And the real answer to that is who gives a shit.

[97 bulls]

but that doesnt mean that hes more impactful than dirk.
And who cares? Without chandler, the mavs arent a championship team. They don't even get close to a championship. They're a middle of the pack team. How many middle of the pack teams do you remember?

[Odinn]

And who cares? Without chandler, the mavs arent a championship team. They don't even get close to a championship. They're a middle of the pack team. How many middle of the pack teams do you remember?
Without Dirk, the Mavs can not even make playoffs, especially in the West. Deal with it.

[97 bulls]

Without Dirk, the Mavs can not even make playoffs, especially in the West. Deal with it.
And like I said in a previous post you don't win without either. So who gives a shit?

[knicksman]

And who cares? Without chandler, the mavs arent a championship team. They don't even get close to a championship. They're a middle of the pack team. How many middle of the pack teams do you remember?

umm dirk could have won in 2006 if wade wasnt gifted 30+ fts. Was chandler present on that team? Did chandler won 50+ in charlotte or chicago?Did the mavs won when dirk was injured?they were 2-7. And LOL at middle of the pack when mavs was the no. 2 team last season.

[97 bulls]

umm dirk could have won in 2006 if wade wasnt gifted 30+ fts. Was chandler present on that team? Did chandler won 50+ in charlotte or chicago?Did the mavs won when dirk was injured?they were 2-7. And LOL at middle of the pack when mavs was the no. 2 team last season.
His mavericks could've but they didn't. I'm not sure having chandler on the team would've been the difference. But he sure would've helped.

[Odinn]

And like I said in a previous post you don't win without either. So who gives a shit?
There is a huge difference between missing the playoffs - playing WCF or WCSF.

[97 bulls]

There is a huge difference between missing the playoffs - playing WCF or WCSF.
I think even without dirk the mavs have enough talent to make the playoffs. Maybe even make the second round. They have a lot of depth

Kidd
Butler
Marion
Chandler
Haywood
Terry as the 6th man
Stevenson
Berrea

[guy]

I think even without dirk the mavs have enough talent to make the playoffs. Maybe even make the second round. They have a lot of depth

Kidd
Butler
Marion
Chandler
Haywood
Terry as the 6th man
Stevenson
Berrea

Butler wasn't there for most of the year? I think they MIGHT've been able to make the playoffs (would have to beat out the Rockets who were 43-39), but not any better then that. No way do they make the 2nd round.

[Fazotronic]

And like I said in a previous post you don't win without either. So who gives a shit?

lol of course. he made it in the playoffs the last 10 years without chandler.
whats your point?

dirks easily is the most important factor. they had like the worst record in the nba without him even with chandler.

jordan wouldn't have won without pippen yet he is way more important then him.

you also just look at the finals. the series he played the worst in the playoffs (even though he was clutch as ****).
everybody is always talking about the team effort which is just flatout stupid beacause every freaking championship team in the history of the nba won the title beacause of the team effort.
don't know why you're making it such a big deal when its about dirk.
the mavs wouldn't even come out of the first round against portland without dirk.

watch this video and than you maybe change your opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oENZ33_ZTkY

[97 bulls]

Butler wasn't there for most of the year? I think they MIGHT've been able to make the playoffs (would have to beat out the Rockets who were 43-39), but not any better then that. No way do they make the 2nd round.
Well that's different. Now youur talking about the mavs losing arguably their two best players. With a fully healthy mavs team, which includes butler, the mavs are probably a 65 win team.

But how many teams, championship teams, can loose their two best players and still be that competitive.

[Odinn]

Well that's different. Now youur talking about the mavs losing arguably their two best players. With a fully healthy mavs team, which includes butler, the mavs are probably a 65 win team.

But how many teams, championship teams, can loose their two best players and still be that competitive.
Wrong again.

01-01-2011, Butler got hurt. Butler completed 28 games. In those 28 games, Mavs were 21-7. That means 61-62 win team.

Before Butler's injury, the Mavs completed 31 games, their record was 24-7. 63 win team.

Also, when Butler was healthy, nobody expected a 65W Mavs. Did you expect?

[Fazotronic]

Wrong again.

01-01-2011, Butler got hurt. Butler completed 28 games. In those 28 games, Mavs were 21-7. That means 61-62 win team.

Before Butler's injury, the Mavs completed 31 games, their record was 24-7. 63 win team.

Also, when Butler was healthy, nobody expected a 65W Mavs. Did you expect?

of course he didn't. hes just making stuff up.

[97 bulls]

lol of course. he made it in the playoffs the last 10 years without chandler.
whats your point?

dirks easily is the most important factor. they had like the worst record in the nba without him even with chandler.

jordan wouldn't have won without pippen yet he is way more important then him.

you also just look at the finals. the series he played the worst in the playoffs (even though he was clutch as ****).
everybody is always talking about the team effort which is just flatout stupid beacause every freaking championship team in the history of the nba won the title beacause of the team effort.
don't know why you're making it such a big deal when its about dirk.
the mavs wouldn't even come out of the first round against portland without dirk.

watch this video and than you maybe change your opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oENZ33_ZTkY
First, we are talking about this mavs team that won the championship. The restt of the team is totally different from the mavs past teams.

And I'm not really making this about dirk. I've already said he's kinda a bad expample because he gives you more than just scoring.

And havinng to stress that basketball is a team effort wouldn't be needed if certain people wouldn't try to act as if the best players win championships by themselves.

[DMAVS41]

Lol a player like chandler makes it easy for dirk to shoot 42% in a finals and win convincingly. And truth be told, it wasn't just chandler or nowitzki. That championship was a team effort. They don't win without marion or terry contributions either.

Basketball is a team sport. Trying to dismiss players roles and determine order of importance is and always has been silly.

When we say who would you build a team around, pick whoever, but you know to build a winner, your gonna need to add to key pieces. Just think about a pies with no filling and sugar.

What you really are asking, is on a bad team, who would put up the better stats? And the real answer to that is who gives a shit.

you are either not understanding my points or you are choosing to not answer the questions. i have been preaching "team" here since I got here. i have never given one player all the credit.

but if you think for a second that tyson chandler is even close to as valuable as dirk you have ****ing lost your mind. the mavs winning was absolutely a team effort. it took great performances at times from terry, chandler, kidd, marion, barea...etc.

that isn't what this is about. this is about individual players. and dirk is so much more valuable to any team....great or awful....than tyson chandler its not even funny.

again, this is about individual players. tyson chandler as your best player? probably won't make the playoffs. dirk as your best player? lock for the playoffs and close to 50 wins year after year. its not even close.

[97 bulls]

Wrong again.

01-01-2011, Butler got hurt. Butler completed 28 games. In those 28 games, Mavs were 21-7. That means 61-62 win team.

Before Butler's injury, the Mavs completed 31 games, their record was 24-7. 63 win team.

Also, when Butler was healthy, nobody expected a 65W Mavs. Did you expect?
Lol so I'm off 3 games.

[Odinn]

Lol so I'm off 3 games.
So, you expected a 62-63W Mavs at the beginning of the season(or when Butler was healthy)?:banana:

[DMAVS41]

I think even without dirk the mavs have enough talent to make the playoffs. Maybe even make the second round. They have a lot of depth

Kidd
Butler
Marion
Chandler
Haywood
Terry as the 6th man
Stevenson
Berrea

Holy shit. Are you serious? That team wins anywhere from 35 to 40 games without Dirk. Butler only played 30 games. The idea of trying to watch those specialist players win games without Dirk out there is laughable. The difference between the Mavs with Dirk on the floor (on both ends I might add) this year was outstanding. Not just in terms of stats, but also wins.

Do you realize how absurd you are being? A team that went 2-7 without Dirk and crumbled statistically is somehow going to not only make the playoffs, but win a round? If they did manage to make the playoffs...which is doubtful, they aren't beating anyone. They are going out in 4 or 5.....

Hilarious how absurd you are being.

And I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of a case other than using Bill Russell (a top 5 player ever and probably the best defensive player ever)....

Pippen fits this scenario perfectly. And you know it. And deep down you also know that guys like magic, dirk, and barkley were simply better players. And that shuts down your argument right there. The best perimeter defender ever (or at least one of them) simply wasn't the player those offensive specialists were. And furthermore, Pippen was a great offensive player as well. So its not like he was just a defender.

[97 bulls]

you are either not understanding my points or you are choosing to not answer the questions. i have been preaching "team" here since I got here. i have never given one player all the credit.

but if you think for a second that tyson chandler is even close to as valuable as dirk you have ****ing lost your mind. the mavs winning was absolutely a team effort. it took great performances at times from terry, chandler, kidd, marion, barea...etc.

that isn't what this is about. this is about individual players. and dirk is so much more valuable to any team....great or awful....than tyson chandler its not even funny.

again, this is about individual players. tyson chandler as your best player? probably won't make the playoffs. dirk as your best player? lock for the playoffs and close to 50 wins year after year. its not even close.
I understand what your saying perfectly. Is dirk a better player than chandler? Yes can the mavs win with one of them missing? No. Would the mavs have a better record with dirk and without chandler? Yes. But who cares? Noone remembers 2nd place finishers much less the teams that are put out in the 1st or 2nd round.

A perfect example is the human body. You cant function normally without a heart, brain, lungs etc. So how can you list which of those is the most important. They all play a vital role in being a living human

[Fazotronic]

Holy shit. Are you serious? That team wins anywhere from 35 to 40 games without Dirk. Butler only played 30 games. The idea of trying to watch those specialist players win games without Dirk out there is laughable. The difference between the Mavs with Dirk on the floor (on both ends I might add) this year was outstanding. Not just in terms of stats, but also wins.

Do you realize how absurd you are being? A team that went 2-7 without Dirk and crumbled statistically is somehow going to not only make the playoffs, but win a round? If they did manage to make the playoffs...which is doubtful, they aren't beating anyone. They are going out in 4 or 5.....

Hilarious how absurd you are being.

And I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of a case other than using Bill Russell (a top 5 player ever and probably the best defensive player ever)....

Pippen fits this scenario perfectly. And you know it. And deep down you also know that guys like magic, dirk, and barkley were simply better players. And that shuts down your argument right there. The best perimeter defender ever (or at least one of them) simply wasn't the player those offensive specialists were. And furthermore, Pippen was a great offensive player as well. So its not like he was just a defender.

Yea. Marion was like the at best the second best player in phx, irrelevant in Miami and than going downhill in toronto. now all of the sudden he is a star player again.
He was just a key piece in that dallas team.

[DMAVS41]

I understand what your saying perfectly. Is dirk a better player than chandler? Yes can the mavs win with one of them missing? No. Would the mavs have a better record with dirk and without chandler? Yes. But who cares? Noone remembers 2nd place finishers much less the teams that are put out in the 1st or 2nd round.

A perfect example is the human body. You cant function normally without a heart, brain, lungs etc. So how can you list which of those is the most important. They all play a vital role in being a living human

Horrible analogy. Dirk is more important...therefore he matters more. Would the Mavs have won without Chandler? Nope. But he's replaceable. Dirk isn't. That is the difference.

And Dirk makes players so much better than they actually are. Terry trying to score without the Dirk pick and roll or Dirk drawing a big to the three point line is unlikely. Kidd getting wide open 3 point shots doesn't happen. Barea doesn't get open lanes to the basket. Peja and Stevenson don't get great looks from 3. Chandler and Haywood would actually have to play offense.

Dirk, along with other great players, allow those secondary players to play their roles. Take that away and you'd be laughing at how bad guys like Kidd and Terry are on their own.

This is about individuals....and are you really making the point that how they perform doesn't matter? What do you mean that nobody cares about 2nd place?

Here is the actual point:

You can win a championship with Dirk as your best player
You probably can't make the playoffs with Chandler as your best player

[97 bulls]

Holy shit. Are you serious? That team wins anywhere from 35 to 40 games without Dirk. Butler only played 30 games. The idea of trying to watch those specialist players win games without Dirk out there is laughable. The difference between the Mavs with Dirk on the floor (on both ends I might add) this year was outstanding. Not just in terms of stats, but also wins.

Do you realize how absurd you are being? A team that went 2-7 without Dirk and crumbled statistically is somehow going to not only make the playoffs, but win a round? If they did manage to make the playoffs...which is doubtful, they aren't beating anyone. They are going out in 4 or 5.....

Hilarious how absurd you are being.

And I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of a case other than using Bill Russell (a top 5 player ever and probably the best defensive player ever)....

Pippen fits this scenario perfectly. And you know it. And deep down you also know that guys like magic, dirk, and barkley were simply better players. And that shuts down your argument right there. The best perimeter defender ever (or at least one of them) simply wasn't the player those offensive specialists were. And furthermore, Pippen was a great offensive player as well. So its not like he was just a defender.
Like I answered the other poster. I was including butler being healthy. Without dirk and Butler, they're at best a 500 team. I've now said this at least three times. Id also like to add that 9 games is too small a sample size to really get an indication of what the mavs would do without dirk.

I believe dwight howard was used. Jason kidd, gary payton, But if you want to use pippen, fine. How about tim duncan? He wasn't gonna drop 30 a night in his prime.
Kevin Garnett is another player. That's about 5 players right there.

But you seem stuck on pippen. So fine, let's use him. I realize your gripe with pippen was that he didn't score in the clutch. Even though I've stated instances where he did take over games. He did a better job or just as good a job as any other player that was in his situation. He just didn't have a team good enough to win a championship in 94 and 95.

Now let me ask you a question.... what do you think pippen would do with the best team in the league with him as the best player? Let's say he had 5 years with a core roster that included

Himself
Nick Young
Shawn Marion (prime)
Undonis Haslem (prime)
Dikembe Mutombo
Bruce Bowen
Taj Gibson

That's a defensive version of the 80s lakers. I don't see how a team could get 80 ppg vs a team like this. And pippen would be the best player on this team.

[97 bulls]

Horrible analogy. Dirk is more important...therefore he matters more. Would the Mavs have won without Chandler? Nope. But he's replaceable. Dirk isn't. That is the difference.
Lol everybodies replceable. Come on


And Dirk makes players so much better than they actually are. Terry trying to score without the Dirk pick and roll or Dirk drawing a big to the three point line is unlikely. Kidd getting wide open 3 point shots doesn't happen. Barea doesn't get open lanes to the basket. Peja and Stevenson don't get great looks from 3. Chandler and Haywood would actually have to play offense.
And replace those shooters with guys that can't shoot, and diks life would be made miserable. Look at kobe in 05- 07, jordan in the mid 80s, wilt in the 60s according to jlauber. Players like peja and terry are there to make teams pay for how they play dirk.

Dirk, along with other great players, allow those secondary players to play their roles. Take that away and you'd be laughing at how bad guys like Kidd and Terry are on their own.

This is about individuals....and are you really making the point that how they perform doesn't matter? What do you mean that nobody cares about 2nd place?
This isn't about individuals cuz basketball isn't an individual sport. And what I mean by nobody remember 2nd place is just that. Nobody remembers the losers. In this offense/defense debate, the mavs have shown you can't win games trying to outscore teams. This is by no mean the best offensive team the mavs have had since dirk been there. But they got smart. They got rid of all that firepower in exchange for some defender and what do you know? They win a championship. That's not a coincidence

Here is the actual point:

You can win a championship with Dirk as your best player
You probably can't make the playoffs with Chandler as your best player
But what are you putting around dirk? Thats the point. All I've ever said is on a championship team, how can you determine order of importance when if one of the key pieces are removed, you don't have a championship team? Isn't that why the game is played?

[guy]

Like I answered the other poster. I was including butler being healthy. Without dirk and Butler, they're at best a 500 team. I've now said this at least three times. Id also like to add that 9 games is too small a sample size to really get an indication of what the mavs would do without dirk.

I believe dwight howard was used. Jason kidd, gary payton, But if you want to use pippen, fine. How about tim duncan? He wasn't gonna drop 30 a night in his prime.
Kevin Garnett is another player. That's about 5 players right there.

But you seem stuck on pippen. So fine, let's use him. I realize your gripe with pippen was that he didn't score in the clutch. Even though I've stated instances where he did take over games. He did a better job or just as good a job as any other player that was in his situation. He just didn't have a team good enough to win a championship in 94 and 95.

Now let me ask you a question.... what do you think pippen would do with the best team in the league with him as the best player? Let's say he had 5 years with a core roster that included

Himself
Nick Young
Shawn Marion (prime)
Undonis Haslem (prime)
Dikembe Mutombo
Bruce Bowen
Taj Gibson

That's a defensive version of the 80s lakers. I don't see how a team could get 80 ppg vs a team like this. And pippen would be the best player on this team.

I'd actually take the 80s Lakers over them pretty easily.

[97 bulls]

Yea. Marion was like the at best the second best player in phx, irrelevant in Miami and than going downhill in toronto. now all of the sudden he is a star player again.
He was just a key piece in that dallas team.
To be fair, he was probably the only good defender in phoenix.

[97 bulls]

So, you expected a 62-63W Mavs at the beginning of the season(or when Butler was healthy)?:banana:
When the mavs got chamdler and haywood, I believed they were the one team that could matchup and beat the lakers cuz they had the size.

[97 bulls]

I'd actually take the 80s Lakers over them pretty easily.
Lol sure you would. That team would beat the lakers 4-1. They can score, they're far and away the better defensive team and the much better reebounding team. Which prohibits the lakers fast break. As well as being big and super athletic.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

[guy]

Lol sure you would. That team would beat the lakers 4-1. They can score, they're far and away the better defensive team and the much better reebounding team. Which prohibits the lakers fast break. As well as being big and super athletic.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

Ummm, the 80s Lakers weren't a bad defensive team. They are about as good defensively as that team is offensively. Regardless of how great defensively those guys are, no one is shutting down Magic, Worthy, Scott, and Kareem for that many games and/or simultaneously. On the other hand, that defensive team would have many scoring droughts since they don't have anyone that can create their own shot consistently. That would be the main issue. I don't think there has ever been a championship team that has had as big of a weakness in that aspect as this team would and that clearly would be a problem against one of the greatest teams ever.

And dude grow up. Don't paint me with that brush. Its not ridiculous at all to think an offensively deficient team like that would lose to one of the greatest teams ever. The Bad Boy Pistons were one of the greatest defenses ever, and much better then that team offensively and they lost to them in 7.

[guy]

Amare Stoudemire vs. Tyson Chandler
Dirk Nowitzki vs. Shawn Marion
Charles Barkley vs. Charles Oakley
Carmelo Anthony vs. Shane Battier
Steve Nash vs. Eric Snow
Allen Iverson vs. Doug Christie

All offense, minimal defense vs. All defense, minimal offense. Thats basically what this question is asking and your a fool if you're taking the defensive guy. There might be a few exceptions in certain cases like Mutombo or Big Ben in their primes, but thats about it.

[tpols]

It depends on the extent of how good each player is at their role. Defensive players seem to be more valuable at lower levels but less valuable at higher ones when being compared to offensive players.

For example, if you take a guy like Tony Allen or Luol Deng and compare them to a guy like Kevin Martin or Monta Ellis, I'll take the defensive players. But if you compare Ben Wallace to Dirk, it's obvious Dirk is a better center piece. Offensive players basically make for better superstars.

[97 bulls]

Ummm, the 80s Lakers weren't a bad defensive team. They are about as good defensively as that team is offensively.
This was my point. A team that's on par with that laker team, but their pollar opposite.

Regardless of how great defensively those guys are, no one is shutting down Magic, Worthy, Scott, and Kareem for that many games and/or simultaneously.
But the 80s lakers had lost seires before. Even to under 500 teams no less.


On the other hand, that defensive team would have many scoring droughts since they don't have anyone that can create their own shot consistently. That would be the main issue. I don't think there has ever been a championship team that has had as big of a weakness in that aspect as this team would and that clearly would be a problem against one of the greatest teams ever.
The San Antonio Spurs were a team that had scoring droughts and stiill managed to win with their defense. The same goes for the 04 pistons. And the 08 celtics.


And dude grow up. Don't paint me with that brush. Its not ridiculous at all to think an offensively deficient team like that would lose to one of the greatest teams ever. The Bad Boy Pistons were one of the greatest defenses ever, and much better then that team offensively and they lost to them in 7.
And its not rediculous to think that that team could win with a cripling defense. And I'm not saying they'd beat the showtime lakers 10-10 times. But come on. You said the lakers would beat them pretty handledly. That I just disagree with. There's not a player on the lakers that you could say would be able to take their man offensively one on one. They'd get killed on the boards. JUST KILLED. They have 3 guys to throw on magic in pippen, marion, and bowen. Where's the lakers advantage?

And this wasn't a teeam constructed to just beat the lakers or anything. It was a team I made up that could win multiple championships with scottie pippen as its best player which seems to be such a hot botton topic.

So with that, ill ask you Guy... could this team win multtiple championships in your opinion. And its just your opinion. Don't try to get political and weasel your way out of it by saying well never know. Would this team be good enough to win a championship?

[DMAVS41]

Like I answered the other poster. I was including butler being healthy. Without dirk and Butler, they're at best a 500 team. I've now said this at least three times. Id also like to add that 9 games is too small a sample size to really get an indication of what the mavs would do without dirk.

I believe dwight howard was used. Jason kidd, gary payton, But if you want to use pippen, fine. How about tim duncan? He wasn't gonna drop 30 a night in his prime.
Kevin Garnett is another player. That's about 5 players right there.

But you seem stuck on pippen. So fine, let's use him. I realize your gripe with pippen was that he didn't score in the clutch. Even though I've stated instances where he did take over games. He did a better job or just as good a job as any other player that was in his situation. He just didn't have a team good enough to win a championship in 94 and 95.

Now let me ask you a question.... what do you think pippen would do with the best team in the league with him as the best player? Let's say he had 5 years with a core roster that included

Himself
Nick Young
Shawn Marion (prime)
Undonis Haslem (prime)
Dikembe Mutombo
Bruce Bowen
Taj Gibson

That's a defensive version of the 80s lakers. I don't see how a team could get 80 ppg vs a team like this. And pippen would be the best player on this team.

You are now rattling off Duncan and KG....those players were too good offensively to be included in your defensive category. They don't fit the hypothetical at all. Duncan is a top 8 player ever because not only was he great defensively, but he was great offensively....and was a great late game player actually.

I love Duncan and KG...I have them both ahead of Dirk all time...but again, look at what Dirk has done. Look at what Dirk did to KG's team in 02...where was KG's defense? Why didn't he slow down Dirk or do anything to stop the Mavs?

Where was Duncan in the 06 series? When Dirk just went off against the Spurs. How come the vaunted Spurs defense and Tim Duncan couldn't slow him down?

We don't have to use Pippen. I'm asking you....what defensive minded player was better than Barkley, Dirk, Magic, Bird.....you respond with Bill Russell. I agree. Anyone else? What players today that are mainly defensive oriented are better than guys like melo, amare, or bosh?

[Odinn]

You are now rattling off Duncan and KG....those players were too good offensively to be included in your defensive category. They don't fit the hypothetical at all. Duncan is a top 8 player ever because not only was he great defensively, but he was great offensively....and was a great late game player actually.

I love Duncan and KG...I have them both ahead of Dirk all time...but again, look at what Dirk has done. Look at what Dirk did to KG's team in 02...where was KG's defense? Why didn't he slow down Dirk or do anything to stop the Mavs?

Where was Duncan in the 06 series? When Dirk just went off against the Spurs. How come the vaunted Spurs defense and Tim Duncan couldn't slow him down?

We don't have to use Pippen. I'm asking you....what defensive minded player was better than Barkley, Dirk, Magic, Bird.....you respond with Bill Russell. I agree. Anyone else? What players today that are mainly defensive oriented are better than guys like melo, amare, or bosh?
This one is harsh. I can not say Timmy slowed down Dirk but Timmy outplayed/outperformed Dirk also.

In that series;
Duncan 32.3 ppg/11.7 rpg/3.7 apg/2.6 bpg/1.0 spg/0.567 fg
Nowitzki 27.1 ppg/13.3 rpg/2.7 apg/0.4 bpg/1.4 spg/0.527 fg

If Manu Ginobili wouldn't make that idiotic foul, we were talking about Spurs' repeat instead of choke job/ref calls.

(Actually this series proves your claim, underlined part.)

[SCdac]

Where was Duncan in the 06 series? When Dirk just went off against the Spurs. How come the vaunted Spurs defense and Tim Duncan couldn't slow him down?

Where was Tim Duncan? :facepalm

You mean the guy who averaged 32.2 points a game, playing with Plantar Fasciitis?

The guy who averaged about 5 more points per game than Dirk?

For the team that was down 3 game to 1... and they still battled back to take it to OVERTIME of the 7th game?

That series could have gone either way, and in fact the Spurs almost won it if it wasn't for Ginobili's dumb foul... Acting like the Mavs "dominated" the Spurs or something is totally revisionist.

What's funny is that was one of the best defensive teams the Mavs ever had - it was DIOP who played stellar D on Duncan in that game 7 - and it only goes along with the idea that defense is all important.

Reading your daily posts... I'm truly surprised you don't have Dirk over KG and Duncan, with how highly you think of him.

[knicksman]

His mavericks could've but they didn't. I'm not sure having chandler on the team would've been the difference. But he sure would've helped.

its because they were screwed by the refs. of course how can you win with that.

[DMAVS41]

Where was Tim Duncan? :facepalm

You mean the guy who averaged 32.2 points a game, playing with Plantar Fasciitis?

The guy who averaged about 5 more points per game than Dirk?

For the team that was down 3 game to 1... and they still battled back to take it to OVERTIME of the 7th game?

That series could have gone either way, and in fact the Spurs almost won it if it wasn't for Ginobili's dumb foul... Acting like the Mavs "dominated" the Spurs or something is totally revisionist.

What's funny is that was one of the best defensive teams the Mavs ever had - it was DIOP who played stellar D on Duncan in that game 7 - and it only goes along with the idea that defense is all important.

Reading your daily posts... I'm truly surprised you don't have Dirk over KG and Duncan, with how highly you think of him.

reading comprehension. defensively mate. where was duncan defensively. diop at times played good defense, but Duncan went off in game 7 just like Dirk did. didn't duncan have like 40/15/10 or something? Its hard to credit defense with a line like that.

[DMAVS41]

This one is harsh. I can not say Timmy slowed down Dirk but Timmy outplayed/outperformed Dirk also.

In that series;
Duncan 32.3 ppg/11.7 rpg/3.7 apg/2.6 bpg/1.0 spg/0.567 fg
Nowitzki 27.1 ppg/13.3 rpg/2.7 apg/0.4 bpg/1.4 spg/0.527 fg

If Manu Ginobili wouldn't make that idiotic foul, we were talking about Spurs' repeat instead of choke job/ref calls.

(Actually this series proves your claim, underlined part.)

defensively. if you took away's duncan's great offense in a series like that and just left him with his all time great defense....the spurs lose in 5 games...maybe a sweep.

thats the point. duncan is without a doubt one of the highest impact defenders the nba has ever seen. and if he was just that great defensive player and like a mutombo offensively or something....he wouldn't even be as close to as good as he was.

which is individually offense just matters more in this hypothetical. a player that can be relied on to get 25 plus a night, have an offense run through them, and is also great in crunch time....just matters more 9 out of 10 times than the defensive player that can guard 4 positions.

with duncan? he had both...and that is why he's number 6 all time for me.

[97 bulls]

You are now rattling off Duncan and KG....those players were too good offensively to be included in your defensive category. They don't fit the hypothetical at all. Duncan is a top 8 player ever because not only was he great defensively, but he was great offensively....and was a great late game player actually.

I love Duncan and KG...I have them both ahead of Dirk all time...but again, look at what Dirk has done. Look at what Dirk did to KG's team in 02...where was KG's defense? Why didn't he slow down Dirk or do anything to stop the Mavs?

Where was Duncan in the 06 series? When Dirk just went off against the Spurs. How come the vaunted Spurs defense and Tim Duncan couldn't slow him down?

We don't have to use Pippen. I'm asking you....what defensive minded player was better than Barkley, Dirk, Magic, Bird.....you respond with Bill Russell. I agree. Anyone else? What players today that are mainly defensive oriented are better than guys like melo, amare, or bosh?
Damn dmavs, you keep asking the same questions. And I keep answering them. Maybe you should ask me to list every player. I've rattled off some names. Kidd, payton, howard, pippen, duncan, and garnett to name a few. And no duncan and garnett are not great scorers. They're very good scorers. Bu theyre more known for versitily. I told you id would include rodman if his head was on straight. And you excluded bull russell. What about alonzo mourning?

And a couple off instances don't help your claim. Tony delk has scored 50 pts in a game. Does that mean he's a better scorer than duncan? Who I don't believe has ever dropped 50 in a game.

And what about that team I constructed? Do you think they could win a championship in todays league?

[knicksman]

kg is a good offensive player and good defensively yet its even debatable whos better between him and dirk.

defense vs offense is like the owners and players debate. Fans are more likely to side with the little guy which in this case are the players or the defensive players. But at the end of the day, the more important players are the players which are rarer. Billionaire owners are harder to find than the players and offensive players are harder to find than defensive players.

The first thing a player learns when playing this game is defense and offense is second meaning offense is advance learning compared to defense. Thats why most offensive players never cared aboud defense.

[DMAVS41]

Damn dmavs, you keep asking the same questions. And I keep answering them. Maybe you should ask me to list every player. I've rattled off some names. Kidd, payton, howard, pippen, duncan, and garnett to name a few. And no duncan and garnett are not great scorers. They're very good scorers. Bu theyre more known for versitily. I told you id would include rodman if his head was on straight. And you excluded bull russell. What about alonzo mourning?

And a couple off instances don't help your claim. Tony delk has scored 50 pts in a game. Does that mean he's a better scorer than duncan? Who I don't believe has ever dropped 50 in a game.

And what about that team I constructed? Do you think they could win a championship in todays league?

you have to list the players you think they are better than.

Take mourning. Was he better than Barkley or Dirk?
Payton. Was he better than Thomas or Nash?
Rodman. Was he better than Barkley or Dirk?
Pippen. Was he better than Magic or Bird?

Stuff like that.

And the Tony Delk thing makes no sense. Has nothing to do with this hypothetical at all. This is about a guy that is reliable and consistent offensively and great at the end of games vs a more defensive player. The only guy that I think this works consistently for is Bill Russell.

[DMAVS41]

kg is a good offensive player and good defensively yet its even debatable whos better between him and dirk.

defense vs offense is like the owners and players debate. Fans are more likely to side with the little guy which in this case are the players or the defensive players. But at the end of the day, the more important players are the players which are rarer. Billionaire owners are harder to find than the players and offensive players are harder to find than defensive players.

The first thing a player learns when playing this game is defense and offense is second meaning offense is advance learning compared to defense. Thats why most offensive players never cared aboud defense.

Another good point. KG vs Dirk. Debatable. I lean towards KG, but think about that. You have an all time great defender and rebounder...combined with a great a 20 plus per game scorer and a great passer.

And its debatable as to which player you'd rather have as your number 1 guy to build a team around. Similar to the Dwight Howard example.

[SCdac]

reading comprehension. defensively mate. where was duncan defensively.

Well, he didn't guard Dirk that much... and Dirk didn't guard Duncan that much... by design of both coaches, undoubtedly.

But are you seriously acting like Duncan didn't put his mark on the series defensively... because they didn't win? or Because Dirk played great? :facepalm

You're more obtuse than I thought.

Duncan averaged over 2.5 blocks in that series and was basically playing center because the Spurs unexpectedly, and controversially amongst SA fans, went small in that series. His "lack of defense" is hardly the reason the Spurs lost.

This is like asking, why didn't Dirk's all-time great offense get the Mavs out of the first round or second round in... 01, 02, 04, 05, 07, 08, 09, and 2010?

Where was Dirk offensively in those seasons?

[97 bulls]

reading comprehension. defensively mate. where was duncan defensively. diop at times played good defense, but Duncan went off in game 7 just like Dirk did. didn't duncan have like 40/15/10 or something? Its hard to credit defense with a line like that.
As was said. He was playing with a bad foot

[DMAVS41]

Well, he didn't guard Dirk that much... and Dirk didn't guard Duncan that much... by design of both coaches, undoubtedly.

But are you seriously acting like Duncan didn't put his mark on the series defensively... because they didn't win? or Because Dirk played great? :facepalm

You're more obtuse than I thought.

Duncan averaged over 2.5 blocks in that series and was basically playing center because the Spurs unexpectedly, and controversially amongst SA fans, went small in that series. His "lack of defense" is hardly the reason the Spurs lost.

This is like asking, why didn't Dirk's all-time great offense get the Mavs out of the first round or second round in... 01, 02, 04, 05, 07, 08, 09, and 2010?

Where was Dirk offensively in those seasons?

What?

I brought that up because Dirk and the Mavs went off in a lot of those games.
The spurs gave up 88.8 ppg that season. The Mavs averaged around 104 ppg in that series. Around 115 per win. Duncan, who happens to play the same position as Dirk, did almost nothing to stop Dirk the last 4 games.

Calm down. This isn't a Dirk vs Duncan argument. Duncan actually played better than Dirk in that series. That is not what this is about. Its an offense vs defense argument. We can both agree that Duncan is one of the best defenders of all time. We can both agree that the 06 Spurs were a great defense. And the Spurs had Bowen as well.

Of course Duncan made an impact defensively on that series. But think about what that series would have been like if Duncan was mainly just a great defender and not also a great offensive player. Its not even close....probably a sweep.

Just another example of offense being more important.

[SCdac]

Duncan, who happens to play the same position as Dirk, did almost nothing to stop Dirk the last 4 games.

They weren't even guarding each other :confusedshrug: ... It's hard to understand what you're trying to say when it seems you didn't even watch the games... (it's highly suspect if you even watched that series, or are just going off stats)

and you didn't answer the question...

Where was Dirk's offense in all those first and second round exits? Why did they never advance with his all-time great offense? why their offensive number drop in some post seasons?

[DMAVS41]

As was said. He was playing with a bad foot

:facepalm

here is what it boils down to...a list of mainly offensive players vs players that play great defense and also play solid offense:

nash vs payton? debatable
dirk vs howard? debatable
barkley vs kg? debatable
shaq vs duncan? debatable
magic vs pippen? magic
bird vs pippen? bird
dirk vs mourning? dirk
barkley vs robinson? debatable
magic vs hakeem? magic

these are some of the best defensive players ever vs some of the best offensive players ever. furthermore, a lot of these defensive players were also great offensively.

other than Bill Russell, there isn't one instance in which the defensive player clearly beats the offensive guy. And again, almost every single one of those defensive guys was also very good to great offensively. If defense was more important, the defensive guys should be winning this comparisons easily.

[97 bulls]

What?

I brought that up because Dirk and the Mavs went off in a lot of those games.
The spurs gave up 88.8 ppg that season. The Mavs averaged around 104 ppg in that series. Around 115 per win. Duncan, who happens to play the same position as Dirk, did almost nothing to stop Dirk the last 4 games.

Calm down. This isn't a Dirk vs Duncan argument. Duncan actually played better than Dirk in that series. That is not what this is about. Its an offense vs defense argument. We can both agree that Duncan is one of the best defenders of all time. We can both agree that the 06 Spurs were a great defense. And the Spurs had Bowen as well.

Of course Duncan made an impact defensively on that series. But think about what that series would have been like if Duncan was mainly just a great defender and not also a great offensive player. Its not even close....probably a sweep.

Just another example of offense being more important.
Duncan avg 32 ppg and the spurs still lost. Maybe if hee hadn't been playing on a bad wheel, his defense would've been better and the spurs win.

Neither is more important than the other. But if I had to choose, I go 55% defense and 4t% offense

[DMAVS41]

They weren't even guarding each other :confusedshrug: ... It's hard to understand what you're trying to say when it seems you didn't even watch the games... (it's highly suspect if you even watched that series, or are just going off stats)

and you didn't answer the question...

Where was Dirk's offense in all those first and second round exits? Why did they never advance with his all-time great offense? why their offensive number drop in some post seasons?

You are just being an idiot now. They didn't guard each other a lot...helps my point. Same with KG vs Dirk in 02....what good is that defense if the player that plays your freaking position tears your team up. That is also why I included the team stats as well....in which the Mavs shredded the Spurs defense to a tune of 15 or so more ppg than they normally gave up.

Where was Dirk's offense? It was there throughout his entire career in the playoffs aside from a couple series. What relevance does that have? I'm not blaming Duncan for that series loss. You get so sensitive...LOL. I'm saying that we can all agree that Duncan is one of the best defenders ever. We can agree the Spurs were great defensively in 06. Yet that defense didn't matter all that much in the series. And when push came to shove, the last 4 games saw Dirk go off and neither Duncan nor the Spurs could do anything to stop him. Just like KG could do nothing to stop Dirk in 02. And you'd see that individual great defense just doesn't matter as much as individual great offense in this hypothetical.

Team defense vs team offense is another story.

[SCdac]

Where was Duncan in the 06 series?


Of course Duncan made an impact defensively on that series.


Duncan actually played better than Dirk in that series

:rolleyes:

[DMAVS41]

:rolleyes:

It was "where was Duncan" defensively as I have explained. Please don't derail a decent thread because you are butthurt still about 06.

Duncan made an impact defensively, just not a huge one. The Mavs shredded the Spurs and the player that plays his position went off. Sorry...get over it.

Duncan is a far better player than Dirk and in my top 6. Enjoy your 4 rings and stop acting like a child.

Doesn't change what happened in 06. Individual offense by Dirk destroyed the individual and team defense of the Spurs.

[DMAVS41]

Duncan avg 32 ppg and the spurs still lost. Maybe if hee hadn't been playing on a bad wheel, his defense would've been better and the spurs win.

Neither is more important than the other. But if I had to choose, I go 55% defense and 4t% offense

So then.

Answer Mourning vs Barkley. Barkley played no defense. None. Mourning was not only a great defender, but solid offensively.

Would you take Mourning over Barkley? And if so, is the gap big or small?

[SCdac]

And when push came to shove, the last 4 games saw Dirk go off and neither Duncan nor the Spurs could do anything to stop him.

Dude, "stopping" the best offensive players is not an easy task. That's basketball, is it not?

Would you say that not having a player to "stop" Dwayne Wade in 2006 ultimately cost the Mavericks a championship?

Wouldn't you say that the inability to stop players then... only emphasizes how much defense is important?

[DMAVS41]

Dude, "stopping" the best offensive players is not an easy task. That's basketball, is it not?

Would you say that not having a player to "stop" Dwayne Wade in 2006 ultimately cost the Mavericks a championship?

Wouldn't you say that the inability to stop players then... only emphasizes how much defense is important?

Thats the point. You can't do it. Even some of the best defensive players ever couldn't and can't do it. And individually (which is what this is about) is almost impossible. It has to be a team thing.

That was my point with KG in 02. Great defender. But put him on a team that isn't made up of quality defenders and his impact defensively dwindles. Its almost impossible to stop a great offensive force like Dirk or Barkley one on one.

And not only that, but the offense late in games (as in this hypothetical) is of extreme importance to winning.

Team defense...I totally agree with you. Individual defense? Nah...too many situations its marginalized. Give me the offensive guy over the defensive guy 9 out of 10 times in a hypothetical like this in which the offensive guy is capable of carrying an offense throughout a game and closing other teams out.

Answer me this. Magic vs Pippen? One of the best offensive players ever that plays little to no defense.....vs arguably the best perimeter defender ever who is also very very good offensive player?

Who do you think is the better player?

[97 bulls]

So then.

Answer Mourning vs Barkley. Barkley played no defense. None. Mourning was not only a great defender, but solid offensively.

Would you take Mourning over Barkley? And if so, is the gap big or small?
Yep. I would've loved to see what mourning would've done with that 93 suns team.

[DMAVS41]

Yep. I would've loved to see what mourning would've done with that 93 suns team.

And to what extent was Mourning a superior player to Barkley in your opinion? Is the gap small or big?

[97 bulls]

And to what extent was Mourning a superior player to Barkley in your opinion? Is the gap small or big?
Its definately small. It always is when you're comaring players that good

[97 bulls]

What the hell? They turned the rep system back on?

[DMAVS41]

Its definately small. It always is when you're comaring players that good

But think about that. Barkley played very little defense. Mourning was a great defender. And Mourning was also a beast offensively as well. How can the gap be small if defense is more important?

Doesn't make sense. Mourning should be considerably better if defense is more important individually like you claim.

[SCdac]

Thats the point. You can't do it. Even some of the best defensive players ever couldn't and can't do it. And individually (which is what this is about) is almost impossible. It has to be a team thing.

Ahh I see. When the Spurs can't stop a PF, it's a "Duncan thing" (as you were basically blaming Duncan before being pressed on it), but when the Mavs can't stop one, it's a "team thing". So, when David West (a Power Forward) upped his averages to about 23 PPG and helped knock the Mavs out of the first round again in 2008... was that just Dirk "not having good enough offense"? or did his lack of defense negatively effect the series in any way whatsoever? You make it seem like individual defense is inconsequential, which obviously, it isn't. When the NO Hornets got beat by the Spurs in the next round and West's averages dropped down to normal, would you say Duncan deserved the credit or the team deserved the credit?

[ZaaaaaH]

In Basketball I want my Star to be Elite in Offense then Defense unless he is 8ft tall with athletic ability like LeBron.

[catch24]

Depends on the position. I know I'd take Hakeem over Magic because of his insane impact on the defensive end. Olajuwon's scoring, play-making, etc is all secondary to me.

[knicksman]

Depends on the position. I know I'd take Hakeem over Magic because of his insane impact on the defensive end. Olajuwon's scoring, play-making, etc is all secondary to me.

but theyre not comparable coz you are comparing a big to perimeter. and hakeem too is great offensively

[DMAVS41]

Ahh I see. When the Spurs can't stop a PF, it's a "Duncan thing" (as you were basically blaming Duncan before being pressed on it), but when the Mavs can't stop one, it's a "team thing". So, when David West (a Power Forward) upped his averages to about 23 PPG and helped knock the Mavs out of the first round again in 2008... was that just Dirk "not having good enough offense"? or did his lack of defense negatively effect the series in any way whatsoever? You make it seem like individual defense is inconsequential, which obviously, it isn't. When the NO Hornets got beat by the Spurs in the next round and West's averages dropped down to normal, would you say Duncan deserved the credit or the team deserved the credit?

1. I never blamed Duncan solely. I talked about both. I simply questioned his impact defensively in the series.
2. I never claimed Dirk to be a defensive force....never.
3. You are bringing up stuff that is irrelevant. David West? Duncan is light years better defensively than West is offensively. If we are going to bring up Duncan's defense...we have to compare that to the offense of an all time great offensive player like Dirk or Barkley. Not David freaking West...LOL

Great offense almost always beats great defensive individually. Great team defense vs great team offense? I'd probably lean towards great team defense.

Two totally different concepts. I guess you can't comprehend that. Sorry.

[Dave3]

Depends on the position. I know I'd take Hakeem over Magic because of his insane impact on the defensive end. Olajuwon's scoring, play-making, etc is all secondary to me.
How good was Magic defensively? Was he average, was he below average, or just above average? All I know is that he wasn't great.

[catch24]

but theyre not comparable coz you are comparing a big to perimeter. and hakeem too is great offensively

I know they're not comparable. I'm saying Hakeem brings more to the table, thus I'd rather build around him.


How good was Magic defensively? Was he average, was he below average, or just above average? All I know is that he wasn't great.

You couldn't put him on quick PG's (KJ, Payton, Stockton, etc). His defense wasn't horrible but I'd say below average. Much of that though is because of the Lakers offensive system. The objective of 'Showtime' was to outscore/run teams.

[SCdac]

1. I never blamed Duncan solely. I talked about both. I simply questioned his impact defensively in the series.
2. I never claimed Dirk to be a defensive force....never.
3. You are bringing up stuff that is irrelevant. David West? Duncan is light years better defensively than West is offensively. If we are going to bring up Duncan's defense...we have to compare that to the offense of an all time great offensive player like Dirk or Barkley. Not David freaking West...LOL

Great offense almost always beats great defensive individually. Great team defense vs great team offense? I'd probably lean towards great team defense.

Two totally different concepts. I guess you can't comprehend that. Sorry.

Maybe if basketball was one on one, then that would make irrefutable sense but what you're failing to realize is individual D is inherently a part of team defense. Basketball IS a team game, even within the context of "who would you build with ?" kinds of questions. Team aspect of basketball, even within individual defense (IE. help defense, etc) does matter.

You completely avoided my question though...

Did Dirk negatively effect that series against New Orleans with his lack of defense? In the same way that Duncan could not "stop" Dirk, wouldn't you say that Dirk not being able to "stop" David West ultimately lead to the loss for the Mavs? (David West put up 25 in the last game leading all scorers). It's not about who's known as a defensive player, it's about what lead to the loss ultimately, regardless of labels.

What I'm asking is, don't you think defense (or lack therof) is generally the "maker or breaker" of a series in todays basketball?

Don't you think neutralizing player X is just as, if not more, important than scoring x amount of points? (think, forcing Lebron into a crappy series being the tipping scale to a loss).

Let me ask you this... assuming you have two players of equal value, one who's more offensively inclined and one who's more defensively inclined... both have equal value... On a personal level, which player do you choose? Personally, I'd choose the defensive player, because I think it's a more important quality, more conducive to winning in the playoffs.

[DaPerceive]

How good was Magic defensively? Was he average, was he below average, or just above average? All I know is that he wasn't great.
He was a good help defender but he was a weak man-to-man defender. I remember reading in Magic's bio saying that he would always get torched defensively during the early years of his career. Part of that was because MSU played zone while the Lakers played man-to-man.


Depends on the position. I know I'd take Hakeem over Magic because of his insane impact on the defensive end. Olajuwon's scoring, play-making, etc is all secondary to me.
Magic is pretty unique so I am not so sure I would agree with this. That being said, if you ask me picking one player over the other to build around doesn't necessarily mean that one player is better than the other.

[catch24]

Magic is pretty unique so I am not so sure I would agree with this. That being said, if you ask me picking one player over the other to build around doesn't necessarily mean that one player is better than the other.

Magic is higher on my all-time list, but its because he was more accomplished. I love the guy, one of my favorite players ever... Hakeem though? Guy is arguable the most skilled offensive/defensive player the game's seen. I can't imagine what he'd do had he not played with trash 70% of his career.

[97 bulls]

Magic is higher on my all-time list, but its because he was more accomplished. I love the guy, one of my favorite players ever... Hakeem though? Guy is arguable the most skilled offensive/defensive player the game's seen. I can't imagine what he'd do had he not played with trash 70% of his career.
Exactly. I view it the same way

[EnoughSaid]

Guys, we're talking solely about defense vs. offense. The things listed in the first post are the ONLY things these players are good at.

[DMAVS41]

Maybe if basketball was one on one, then that would make irrefutable sense but what you're failing to realize is individual D is inherently a part of team defense. Basketball IS a team game, even within the context of "who would you build with ?" kinds of questions. Team aspect of basketball, even within individual defense (IE. help defense, etc) does matter.

You completely avoided my question though...

Did Dirk negatively effect that series against New Orleans with his lack of defense? In the same way that Duncan could not "stop" Dirk, wouldn't you say that Dirk not being able to "stop" David West ultimately lead to the loss for the Mavs? (David West put up 25 in the last game leading all scorers). It's not about who's known as a defensive player, it's about what lead to the loss ultimately, regardless of labels.

What I'm asking is, don't you think defense (or lack therof) is generally the "maker or breaker" of a series in todays basketball?

Don't you think neutralizing player X is just as, if not more, important than scoring x amount of points? (think, forcing Lebron into a crappy series being the tipping scale to a loss).

Let me ask you this... assuming you have two players of equal value, one who's more offensively inclined and one who's more defensively inclined... both have equal value... On a personal level, which player do you choose? Personally, I'd choose the defensive player, because I think it's a more important quality, more conducive to winning in the playoffs.

No, I don't think Dirk negatively impacted the Hornets series. Just like I don't think Duncan negatively impacted the Mavs series. Never said such a thing.

Individual defense is of course part of team defense. I'm not discounting its importance. I just think the ability to carry a team offensively and take over in crunch time is worth more individually than being able to play great defense individually.

Furthermore, a great offensive player is pretty much a great offensive player regardless of teammates. In terms of impact at least. Defensively? I don't think the same is true to the extent it is with offense.

So you would take Garnett over Magic? Pippen over Bird? Payton over Dirk? Mourning over Barkley?

I can't answer your equal value question because that isn't realistic. Pippen is a great example of this for me. Great defender...maybe the best perimeter defender ever. Would I take him over Magic...who strictly played offense? Hell no. I think Magic was easily the higher impact player. Would I take Pippen over Barkley? Nope. Over Dirk? Nope. Would I take Pippen over Wade? Nope.

I think when you breakdown players strictly offense vs offense and defense vs defense....the overall impact is lost.

Do I think team defense is the make or break factor? Its certainly important....but so is late game execution and performance. I could just as easily argue that the difference in the finals was that Dirk was unstoppable while both Wade and Lebron struggled late in the games.

Well, maybe I can answer your question. If you have me two players of equal value and one had a specialty of defense...and the other had a specialty of late game clutch play. Give me the guy that can be consistently relied upon to be there night after night in tight games. Teams can make up for that lack of defense out of one player. Its very difficult to find a way to consistently perform in the 4th qtrs (especially in the playoffs) without an elite offense weapon.

[DMAVS41]

Depends on the position. I know I'd take Hakeem over Magic because of his insane impact on the defensive end. Olajuwon's scoring, play-making, etc is all secondary to me.

I think its debatable. I personally think Magic was the higher impact player. I'd take Magic. And nobody would bat an eye at me for saying so.

So if its debatable between a player that was great offensively but played almost no defense vs a player that was one of the highest impact defenders ever and also a great offensive player....

Doesn't that mean individual offense matters more? I mean, if defense was really of higher value...then Hakeem would simply have easily been a better player than Magic.

And everyone that ever watched both of them play simply knows that not to be true.

[catch24]

I think its debatable. I personally think Magic was the higher impact player. I'd take Magic. And nobody would bat an eye at me for saying so.

Doesn't that mean individual offense matters more? I mean, if defense was really of higher value...then Hakeem would simply have easily been a better player than Magic.

I'm not suggesting that defense matters more. What I am saying..is Hakeem was more versatile and a better all-around player...not sure if that's debatable. Lets be real, Hakeem's impact on the defensive end really doesn't take a back seat to anyone, whereas Magic...well he wasn't just another run in the mill offensive player. The guy arguably had the greatest impact on that end.

It's basically a pick'em imo.

[DMAVS41]

I'm not suggesting that defense matters more. What I am saying..is Hakeem was more versatile and a better all-around player...not sure if that's debatable. Lets be real, Hakeem's impact on the defensive end really doesn't take a back seat to anyone, whereas Magic...well he wasn't just another run in the mill offensive player. The guy arguably had the greatest impact on that end.

It's basically a pick'em imo.

I understand. But if Hakeem was that good defensively and also a truly great offensive player as well....and Magic was pretty much strictly an offensive player.

Doesn't that imply that offensive brilliance is more valuable than defensive brilliance.

There are other examples as well.

Wouldn't that imply that a player like KG should be easily better than Barkley? KG played all time great defense....Barkley admittedly didn't care about defense at all. But anyone that watched them both play should be willing to admit that Barkley vs KG overall is a legit debate. And so I don't see how defense in this scenario can be more valuable. Because we are taking some of the highest impact defenders ever...that also were very good to great offensive players...and comparing them to strictly offensive players and its debatable as to which player is superior.

Just doesn't add up if defense is worth more.

[catch24]

I understand. But if Hakeem was that good defensively and also a truly great offensive player as well....and Magic was pretty much strictly an offensive player.

Doesn't that imply that offensive brilliance is more valuable than defensive brilliance.

I don't think so. From what I understand, most people rank Magic higher all-time, and that's because of the Lakers team accomplishments (which concurrently is the reason people would take Magic>>>Hakeem). I'm not taking anything away from him; Magic was driving force of those dynasty teams, but can you honestly say with a straight face that he was the better player?

You got me looking like a hypocrite over here man. I just got finished making a thread on his comeback :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

I don't think so. From what I understand, most people rank Magic higher all-time, and that's because of the Lakers team accomplishments (which concurrently is the reason people would take Magic>>>Hakeem). I'm not taking anything away from him; Magic was driving force of those dynasty teams, but can you honestly say with a straight face that he was the better player?

You got me looking like a hypocrite over here man. I just got finished making a thread on his comeback :oldlol:

Did you watch Magic play? Absolutely I can say he was a better player with a straight face. I kind of hope you didn't see Magic and Hakeem play the majority of their careers. LOL at acting like its a stretch to say Magic was just a better basketball player. I'd take Magic over Hakeem in a heartbeat to start a team.

But Magic doesn't even have to be better for me to prove my point. It just has to be debatable.

Take the 89 season. Hakeem put up something like 25/14/2....he was great offensively and led the league in defensive win shares. Easily one of the best defenders in the league.

Who do I think was better that year? Magic...not a doubt in my mind. And Magic hardly played a lick of defense....at least not compared to Hakeem.

[PHILA]

but can you honestly say with a straight face that he was the better player?

:facepalm

[DMAVS41]

:facepalm

Yep.

But in his defense...there is no way he actually saw them both play the majority of their careers. I've never heard anyone that actually watched from 1980 onwards that would question someone saying Magic was a better basketball player than Hakeem.

[catch24]

Did you watch Magic play? Absolutely I can say he was a better player with a straight face. I kind of hope you didn't see Magic and Hakeem play the majority of their careers. LOL at acting like its a stretch to say Magic was just a better basketball player. I'd take Magic over Hakeem in a heartbeat to start a team.

What's with the lame questions? I wouldn't be dropping comments had I not seen him play. Relax guy. Strictly off basketball skills and ability, Hakeem was the better player. Hakeem was better defensively, a better rebounder and scorer; Magic had him beat in playmaking. That's really it. I've watched both play and am comfortable with this opinion.

I get the impression you would take Magic because of his intangibles (e.g, clutch-play, leadership and high iq).

That's fine. :confusedshrug:


But Magic doesn't even have to be better for me to prove my point. It just has to be debatable

I never said it wasn't debatable. All I'm really asking is if you honestly believe Magic, from an all-around standpoint, was better? I fail to see it.

[DMAVS41]

What's with the lame questions? I wouldn't be commenting if I didn't him play. Relax guy. Strictly off basketball skills and ability, Hakeem was the better player. Hakeem was a better defensive player, rebounder and scorer; Magic had him beat in playmaking. That's really it. I've watched both play and am comfortable with this opinion.

I get the impression you would take Magic because of his intangibles (e.g, clutch-play, leadership and high iq).

That's fine. :confusedshrug:



I never said it wasn't debatable. All I'm really asking is if you honestly believe Magic, from an all-around standpoint, was better? I fail to see it.

Yes Yes Yes. I would take Magic over Hakeem because I think Magic was just a better basketball player.

I think he had a bigger impact on the game. I asked the question because honestly it sounds like you didn't see either of them play.

This is exactly my point with these lame ass offense vs offense and defense vs defense breakdowns. You lose the true impact of some players...and some players get over-rated.

[catch24]

I think he had a bigger impact on the game. I asked the question because honestly it sounds like you didn't see either of them play.

What? For thinking Hakeem was better? This makes utterly no sense at all.

I thought Hakeem had just as much impact on his teams as Magic. My argument is that had his management surrounded him with better casts, he'd be up there with Magic and some of the other legends. Of course this is speculation, but that's how good I thought the guy was.

[DMAVS41]

What? For thinking Hakeem was better? This makes utterly no sense at all.

I thought Hakeem had just as much impact on his teams as Magic. My argument is that had his management surrounded him with better casts, he'd be up there with Magic and some of the other legends. Of course this is speculation, but that's how good I thought the guy was.

not for saying that...for saying:

"can you honestly tell me with a straight face that you thought magic was better....i just don't see it"

for that.

so you think they are debatable. we both agree that hakeem was a far superior defender and also a great offensive player. so how can they be debatable if defense (not saying you are saying this..but this is to the others) is more important individually. you have one of the greatest impact defenders ever and also a great offensive player vs an all time great offensive player that played very little defense comparatively. if defense was truly more valuable individually...then Hakeem would be the clear cut better player. But that of course just is not the case.

[catch24]

not for saying that...for saying:

"can you honestly tell me with a straight face that you thought magic was better....i just don't see it"

for that.

When I proposed that question I was merely going off basketball skills. I don't see how Magic had more basketball skills than Hakeem. :confusedshrug:

Hakeem: Elite rebounding, legendary defense, elite scoring, great leadership (must take some when you're leading the cast that he was surrounded with to the Finals 2x), great clutch play

vs.

Magic: Great rebounding, legendary playmaking, below average defense, great scoring, first-class leadership qualities, great clutch-play.

Magic had more weaknesses, imo.

[catch24]

Hakeem also had pretty damn good playmaking abilities. Probably the best at his position during his peak...or prime.

[DMAVS41]

When I proposed that question I was merely going off basketball skills. I don't see how Magic had more basketball skills than Hakeem. :confusedshrug:

Hakeem: Elite rebounding, legendary defense, elite scoring, great leadership (must take some when you're leading the cast that he was surrounded with to the Finals 2x), great clutch play

vs.

Magic: Great rebounding, legendary playmaking, below average defense, great scoring, first-class leadership qualities, great clutch-play.

Magic had more weaknesses, imo.

Again, this is my problem with breaking down players like this. The true value of a player can often be lost...or weakened....or some can be over-rated.

Until we realize that some aspects of basketball are more valuable than others, we'll be stuck in this weird area in which you can argue on paper that Pippen is better than Magic or that KG was easily better than Barkley/Dirk. A lot is lost in those breakdowns. Just my opinion though.

[catch24]

Again, this is my problem with breaking down players like this. The true value of a player can often be lost...or weakened....or some can be over-rated.

Like I said, Hakeem brought more to his teams...and HAD to do more for them to even be considered contenders.

Agree to disagree.


Until we realize that some aspects of basketball are more valuable than others, we'll be stuck in this weird area in which you can argue on paper that Pippen is better than Magic or that KG was easily better than Barkley/Dirk. A lot is lost in those breakdowns. Just my opinion though.

Pippen vs. Barkley/Dirk is a little different imo. While Pipp's defense was all-time great, he didn't have the impact Hakeem did...at least not enough to out-weigh Magic's offensive abilities.

[tpols]

Again, this is my problem with breaking down players like this. The true value of a player can often be lost...or weakened....or some can be over-rated.

Until we realize that some aspects of basketball are more valuable than others, we'll be stuck in this weird area in which you can argue on paper that Pippen is better than Magic or that KG was easily better than Barkley/Dirk. A lot is lost in those breakdowns. Just my opinion though.
Not at all..

You were criticizing one of the posters you were arguing with before for using Bill Russel as an example of defense trumping offense.. because he was the only true example of a defensive superstar who had a GOAT level impact.

But then you turn around and use the only offensive player of all time[who didnt really play defense] who had a GOAT level impact by constantly referencing Magic Johnson. You're doing the very same thing you called others out on. Magic Johnson is the only player in anyone's top ten that didn't play any defense. So you're being a hypocrite here.

And with regards to bringing up Pippen versus Magic the comparison still works out perfectly if you break it down into parts. You have:

Offensive Impact
Defensive Impact
Intangibles[which include ability to motivate/lead, clutch ability, etc]

Magic DESTROYS Pippen in two of those categories.. which is why he's considered a much better player.

In regards to Mourning versus Barkley, Barkley beats Mourning by a fair amount offensively and defensively the gap isn't as large between the two because of Barkley's monster rebounding. Simply put, Barkley's gap in offense is bigger than his gap in defense in comparison to Mourning. Barkley actually had better intangibles too.. better in the clutch.. less of a headcase[didn't get rattled]. So thats two categories he beats Mourning in out of three. The only thing Mourning did better than Barkley was play defense not including rebounding.:confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

Again, this is my problem with breaking down players like this. The true value of a player can often be lost...or weakened....or some can be over-rated.

Until we realize that some aspects of basketball are more valuable than others, we'll be stuck in this weird area in which you can argue on paper that Pippen is better than Magic or that KG was easily better than Barkley/Dirk. A lot is lost in those breakdowns. Just my opinion though.
But its not that simple. Look at the magiic and pippen conversation we had. Honestly, what makes magic a better basketball player than pippen? Let's look at their attributes. They scored about the same even though magic did it in an era that was much more scorer friendly and played in a fast break offense. They rebounded about the same. Pippen was a better athlete. Magics jumpshot was no less or more than pippens. Id even say pippens post game was a little better than johnsons. So what it comes down to is magics passing vs. Pippens defense. We both agree magic was nowhere near the defender pippen was. You even admitted magic was a bad defender and pippen may be the best ever. And while magic is obviously the better passer, pippen was no slouch in that department either. On the dreamteam, pippen led that team in assists not magic. A lot of people feel the assist is the most overrated stat kept in basketball. And some pllayers like oscar robinson, feel that a lot of magics assists wouldn't be counted as assists back in their day. And he was passing to a bunch of players that could fill it up.

So it comes down to accomplishments and the fact that magic led his teams to 5 championships, and he won 3 mvps. Something pippen has no control over cuz his prime and jordans prime coincided with each others. And I just feel you can't fault players for the roles they're put in. But by the same token, magic is and should definately be ranked higher than pippen because magic did accomplish more than pippen did. No matter what the circumstance.

Its like in football. Bo jackson and emmit smith. Who's ranked higher? Smith. He has the ruching title, he has the mvp, the championships etc. But if you were to ask me who the better tailback was? It jackson. Even though he didn't accomoplish nearly the amount of stuff smith did. There's no doubt in my mind that if he didn't split time between baseball and football, and had the samt caliber talent built around him that smith had, and didn't have his career cut short by that injury, he'd probably be the best tailback ever.

[catch24]

Not at all..

You were criticizing one of the posters you were arguing with before for using Bill Russel as an example of defense trumping offense.. because he was the only true example of a defensive superstar who had a GOAT level impact.

But then you turn around and use the only offensive player of all time[who didnt really play defense] who had a GOAT level impact by constantly referencing Magic Johnson. You're doing the very same thing you called others out on. Magic Johnson is the only player in anyone's top ten that didn't play any defense. So you're being a hypocrite here.

And with regards to bringing up Pippen versus Magic the comparison still works out perfectly if you break it down into parts. You have:

Offensive Impact
Defensive Impact
Intangibles[which include ability to motivate/lead, clutch ability, etc]

Magic DESTROYS Pippen in two of those categories.. which is why he's considered a much better player.

In regards to Mourning versus Barkley, Barkley beats Mourning by a fair amount offensively and defensively the gap isn't as large between the two because of Barkley's monster rebounding. Simply put, Barkley's gap in offense is bigger than his gap in defense in comparison to Mourning. Barkley actually had better intangibles too.. better in the clutch.. less of a headcase[didn't get rattled]. So thats two categories he beats Mourning in out of three. The only thing Mourning did better than Barkley was play defense not including rebounding.:confusedshrug:

Good post.

Hakeem vs. Magic from a skills perspective just isn't debatable to me. From the games and footage I've watched, I really don't see how it is. Magic being the better overall player though..isn't something to scoff at either. When we start breaking down intangibles, no matter how difficult it is to quantify them, they need to be part of the comparison.

[97 bulls]

Not at all..

You were criticizing one of the posters you were arguing with before for using Bill Russel as an example of defense trumping offense.. because he was the only true example of a defensive superstar who had a GOAT level impact.

But then you turn around and use the only offensive player of all time[who didnt really play defense] who had a GOAT level impact by constantly referencing Magic Johnson. You're doing the very same thing you called others out on. Magic Johnson is the only player in anyone's top ten that didn't play any defense. So you're being a hypocrite here.

And with regards to bringing up Pippen versus Magic the comparison still works out perfectly if you break it down into parts. You have:

Offensive Impact
Defensive Impact
Intangibles[which include ability to motivate/lead, clutch ability, etc]

Magic DESTROYS Pippen in two of those categories.. which is why he's considered a much better player.

In regards to Mourning versus Barkley, Barkley beats Mourning by a fair amount offensively and defensively the gap isn't as large between the two because of Barkley's monster rebounding. Simply put, Barkley's gap in offense is bigger than his gap in defense in comparison to Mourning. Barkley actually had better intangibles too.. better in the clutch.. less of a headcase[didn't get rattled]. So thats two categories he beats Mourning in out of three. The only thing Mourning did better than Barkley was play defense not including rebounding.:confusedshrug:
I was with all the way up until you said magic detroys pippen in the intangibles/clutch area. Pippen has had his share of big games as well as clutch moments. Along with his share of flounders. The same aplies for magic. It just comes down to magic had ample opportunities where as pippen didn't.


As far as mourning/barkley. Barkley was just as much a malcontent as mourning was a headcase. And the only player that really brought that out of mourning was rodman.

But the rest off your post is spot on. There really very few players that are in the top 50 that weren't really two way players.

[tpols]

I was with all the way up until you said magic detroys pippen in the intangibles/clutch area. Pippen has had his share of big games as well as clutch moments. Along with his share of flounders. The same aplies for magic. It just comes down to magic had ample opportunities where as pippen didn't.

We cant start subbing in hypotheticals here.. both Magic and Pippen played on great teams capable of winning titles. Both were very successful. But Magic had many more dominant playoff runs than Pippen and many more clutch moments. He was also a much better leader and motivator.. he talked better and had a more colorful personality. Bullshit on pippen didn't have a chance. Pippen played on title contenders his whole career and never took over to the extent Magic did[and dont give me the MJ excuse because Magic came onto a team with a still prime Kareem and bested him].

Magic Johnson had better intangibles than Scottie Pippen. He was one of the biggest personalities and best talkers the NBA has ever seen.. and his character completely translated onto the court.



As far as mourning/barkley. Barkley was just as much a malcontent as mourning was a headcase. And the only player that really brought that out of mourning was rodman.

Both were emotional players.. you're right. But Barkley was undoubtedly the better take over player and he was better at carrying teams/playing in the clutch. He was a better intangibles player.

[97 bulls]

We cant start subbing in hypotheticals here.. both Magic and Pippen played on great teams capable of winning titles. Both were very successful. But Magic had many more dominant playoff runs than Pippen and many more clutch moments. He was also a much better leader and motivator.. he talked better and had a more colorful personality. Bullshit on pippen didn't have a chance. Pippen played on title contenders his whole career and never took over to the extent Magic did[and dont give me the MJ excuse because Magic came onto a team with a still prime Kareem and bested him].

Magic Johnson had better intangibles than Scottie Pippen. He was one of the biggest personalities and best talkers the NBA has ever seen.. and his character completely translated onto the court.



Both were emotional players.. you're right. But Barkley was undoubtedly the better take over player and he was better at carrying teams/playing in the clutch. He was a better intangibles player.
Magic was definately much more charismatic than pippen ever could've been. But I've had this conversation before. When you say magic had more dominant playoff runs, in what context are you referring to? Statictically? Kinda hard to say that because of the era that magic played in. Taking over games? Magic johnson best playoff game came in his rookie year. Not saying he didn't have some amazing playoff runs but so did pippen. And while its true magic did play with kareem, that wasn't kareem of the 70s. Kareem was in his late 30s when magic became the best player on that team. Pippens prime unfortunately for him happened at the same time jordan had his.

Now you can call it fantasy, conjecture, what if? etc. But your comparing two players that didn't play under the same circumstances. And its funny, cuz this only happens with basketball fans. Boxing fans realize that while mike tyson was probably the most dominant heavy weight ever, he didn't really fight anyone of significance. And thus isn't ranked ahead of ali. Not to mention the pound for pound best fighter which takes into consideration the size of a boxer.

Its widely understood that if barry sanders had emmit smiths line and recievers that he would've obliterated the rushing record book.

Your typical good reciever nowadays catches about 90 balls a year. But we know jerry rice is still the greatest ever. The nfl is just a passing league now.

Why is it so hard to acknowledge the circumstances of basketball players?

[DMAVS41]

Not at all..

You were criticizing one of the posters you were arguing with before for using Bill Russel as an example of defense trumping offense.. because he was the only true example of a defensive superstar who had a GOAT level impact.

But then you turn around and use the only offensive player of all time[who didnt really play defense] who had a GOAT level impact by constantly referencing Magic Johnson. You're doing the very same thing you called others out on. Magic Johnson is the only player in anyone's top ten that didn't play any defense. So you're being a hypocrite here.

And with regards to bringing up Pippen versus Magic the comparison still works out perfectly if you break it down into parts. You have:

Offensive Impact
Defensive Impact
Intangibles[which include ability to motivate/lead, clutch ability, etc]

Magic DESTROYS Pippen in two of those categories.. which is why he's considered a much better player.

In regards to Mourning versus Barkley, Barkley beats Mourning by a fair amount offensively and defensively the gap isn't as large between the two because of Barkley's monster rebounding. Simply put, Barkley's gap in offense is bigger than his gap in defense in comparison to Mourning. Barkley actually had better intangibles too.. better in the clutch.. less of a headcase[didn't get rattled]. So thats two categories he beats Mourning in out of three. The only thing Mourning did better than Barkley was play defense not including rebounding.:confusedshrug:

Not true. That is merely one of my examples. I have listed about 10 others. He can only list one player. And he listed Hakeem. A top ten player ever....absolutely should be compared to an elite player of all time like a magic or bird...or even shaq if you want to get realistic.

Doesn't have to be just magic. I could use Bird as well for that comparison. Or even Jerry West......West vs Hakeem is totally debatable. Which once again proves that individual offense is more important than defense. Nobody would laugh at someone saying jerry west was close to or better than hakeem....or oscar for that matter. All debatable.

I can rattle off a ton of players that fit this...he can only list the GOAT defensive player that played 50 years ago.

[DMAVS41]

But its not that simple. Look at the magiic and pippen conversation we had. Honestly, what makes magic a better basketball player than pippen? Let's look at their attributes. They scored about the same even though magic did it in an era that was much more scorer friendly and played in a fast break offense. They rebounded about the same. Pippen was a better athlete. Magics jumpshot was no less or more than pippens. Id even say pippens post game was a little better than johnsons. So what it comes down to is magics passing vs. Pippens defense. We both agree magic was nowhere near the defender pippen was. You even admitted magic was a bad defender and pippen may be the best ever. And while magic is obviously the better passer, pippen was no slouch in that department either. On the dreamteam, pippen led that team in assists not magic. A lot of people feel the assist is the most overrated stat kept in basketball. And some pllayers like oscar robinson, feel that a lot of magics assists wouldn't be counted as assists back in their day. And he was passing to a bunch of players that could fill it up.

So it comes down to accomplishments and the fact that magic led his teams to 5 championships, and he won 3 mvps. Something pippen has no control over cuz his prime and jordans prime coincided with each others. And I just feel you can't fault players for the roles they're put in. But by the same token, magic is and should definately be ranked higher than pippen because magic did accomplish more than pippen did. No matter what the circumstance.

Its like in football. Bo jackson and emmit smith. Who's ranked higher? Smith. He has the ruching title, he has the mvp, the championships etc. But if you were to ask me who the better tailback was? It jackson. Even though he didn't accomoplish nearly the amount of stuff smith did. There's no doubt in my mind that if he didn't split time between baseball and football, and had the samt caliber talent built around him that smith had, and didn't have his career cut short by that injury, he'd probably be the best tailback ever.

I'm not talking about rankings. I'm talking solely about who I thought the better basketball players were.

I'd take both Magic and Bird quite easily over Hakeem. No doubt Hakeem played significantly better defense. I'd take Shaq over Hakeem as well...quite easily....Hakeem played significantly better defense.

I'd take Barkley over Mourning...easily. I'd take Barkley over David Robinson...although that is close. I'd take Dirk over both of those guys as well.

I'd take thomas and bird and magic and barkley and dirk and west and baylor and a whole host of other players like wade and kobe over pippen...a player in pippen that was probably the best and most complete perimeter defender ever.....along with a very skilled offensive force.

I'd take Barkley and Dirk over Ewing.

I'd take Nash over Payton....close though. But the fact that its close is more evidence that supports my side. How could it be close if defense matters more? Payton is one of the best pg defenders ever...Nash is one of the worst. How could it be close if defense matters more?

i'd take dirk currently over dwight howard. if individual defense matters more...howard should easily be the better player. he's simply not if you are being at all honest with yourself.

[97 bulls]

Not true. That is merely one of my examples. I have listed about 10 others. He can only list one player. And he listed Hakeem. A top ten player ever....absolutely should be compared to an elite player of all time like a magic or bird...or even shaq if you want to get realistic.

Doesn't have to be just magic. I could use Bird as well for that comparison. Or even Jerry West......West vs Hakeem is totally debatable. Which once again proves that individual offense is more important than defense. Nobody would laugh at someone saying jerry west was better than hakeem....or oscar for that matter. All debatable.

I can rattle off a ton of players that fit this...he can only list the GOAT defensive player that played 50 years ago.
Jerry west was known as a very good defender. Bird made the all defense 2nd team 3 times. Your only two players are magic and barkley.

[pauk]

I completely shut you down for 48 minutes.... you score 0 points...

You cant stop me from scoring at least 1 basket during those 48 minutes...

hence... Defense > Offense

:lol

nah.. but seriously.. Offense > Defense... a good defense can never stop a good offense...

if that good defensive team cant score... they can never win...

but.. if that good offensive team cant defend... they can still win... trading baskets if u may...

[97 bulls]

I'm not talking about rankings. I'm talking solely about who I thought the better basketball players were.

I'd take both Magic and Bird quite easily over Hakeem. No doubt Hakeem played significantly better defense. I'd take Shaq over Hakeem as well...quite easily....Hakeem played significantly better defense.

I'd take Barkley over Mourning...easily. I'd take Barkley over David Robinson...although that is close. I'd take Dirk over both of those guys as well.

I'd take thomas and bird and magic and barkley and dirk and west and baylor and a whole host of other players like wade and kobe over pippen...a player in pippen that was probably the best and most complete perimeter defender ever.....along with a very skilled offensive force.

I'd take Barkley and Dirk over Ewing.

I'd take Nash over Payton....close though. But the fact that its close is more evidence that supports my side. How could it be close if defense matters more? Payton is one of the best pg defenders ever...Nash is one of the worst. How could it be close if defense matters more?

i'd take dirk currently over dwight howard. if individual defense matters more...howard should easily be the better player. he's simply not if you are being at all honest with yourself.
But again, what are you basing your picks on? Id assume winning. And as Catch24 said, that winning has a lot to do with them having the best team in the league.

[DMAVS41]

Jerry west was known as a very good defender. Bird made the all defense 2nd team 3 times. Your only two players are magic and barkley.

very good is different from being an all time great defender like the people you are listing.....not to mention that these players you are listing also played great offense as well. especially the centers and pippen and payton. all high high high impact defenders.

guys like bird simply weren't forces defensively like that.

take hakeem vs bird. hakeem's defensive impact was huge....much greater than bird's. and he also was a beast offensively. and i'd take bird....quite easily.

i've given you so many examples and you just refuse them all.

dirk vs howard. nash vs payton. magic/bird/shaq vs hakeem. magic/bird/shaq vs duncan. barkley vs kg/pippen. pippen vs thomas. payton vs thomas. barkley/dirk vs robinson. i could go on and on.

if defense matters more, those defensive players above would simply be much better players.

only magic and barkley? hardly. sorry.

[BlackJoker23]

I'm not talking about rankings. I'm talking solely about who I thought the better basketball players were.

I'd take both Magic and Bird quite easily over Hakeem. No doubt Hakeem played significantly better defense. I'd take Shaq over Hakeem as well...quite easily....Hakeem played significantly better defense.

I'd take Barkley over Mourning...easily. I'd take Barkley over David Robinson...although that is close. I'd take Dirk over both of those guys as well.

I'd take thomas and bird and magic and barkley and dirk and west and baylor and a whole host of other players like wade and kobe over pippen...a player in pippen that was probably the best and most complete perimeter defender ever.....along with a very skilled offensive force.

I'd take Barkley and Dirk over Ewing.

I'd take Nash over Payton....close though. But the fact that its close is more evidence that supports my side. How could it be close if defense matters more? Payton is one of the best pg defenders ever...Nash is one of the worst. How could it be close if defense matters more?

i'd take dirk currently over dwight howard. if individual defense matters more...howard should easily be the better player. he's simply not if you are being at all honest with yourself.
good thing nobody really cares about who u would take because you're a phucking moron

[DMAVS41]

But again, what are you basing your picks on? Id assume winning. And as Catch24 said, that winning has a lot to do with them having the best team in the league.

I'm picking them on their ability to play basketball. My opinion of how good those players were.

Are you seriously questioning the validity of saying someone like Dirk or Barkley is better than Robinson or Howard?

Or magic/bird better than Duncan/Hakeem? Or Nash better than Payton. Wade better than Pippen?

I'd lean towards the offensive players in all of them...but at the very least they are debatable. Throw out "winning"....just in terms of being the better basketball player.

Its amazing how much of the true impact of all time great players is lost on here with these absurd breakdowns. I've got people telling me that they "can't see a reason" to say Magic was a better basketball player than Hakeem. I guess you guys feel the same way about Bird.

Kobe vs Hakeem is another absolutely debatable comparison in terms of ability to play. I go with Hakeem, but its not like Hakeem was twice as good or something.

[97 bulls]

I completely shut you down for 48 minutes.... you score 0 points...

You cant stop me from scoring at least 1 basket during those 48 minutes...

hence... Defense > Offense

:lol

nah.. but seriously.. Offense > Defense... a good defense can never stop a good offense...

if that good defensive team cant score... they can never win...

but.. if that good offensive team cant defend... they can still win
Both are of equal importance. Maybe another way to put it is that it depends largely on what side of the ball your on.

Even in the clucth. I believe on 82games, the league avg for clutch baskets was in the low 40s. Meaning that the defense wins out more often than not.

[97 bulls]

I'm picking them on their ability to play basketball. My opinion of how good those players were.

Are you seriously questioning the validity of saying someone like Dirk or Barkley is better than Robinson or Howard?

Or magic/bird better than Duncan/Hakeem? Or Nash better than Payton. Wade better than Pippen?

I'd lean towards the offensive players in all of them...but at the very least they are debatable. Throw out "winning"....just in terms of being the better basketball player.

Its amazing how much of the true impact of all time great players is lost on here with these absurd breakdowns. I've got people telling me that they "can't see a reason" to say Magic was a better basketball player than Hakeem. I guess you guys feel the same way about Bird.

Kobe vs Hakeem is another absolutely debatable comparison in terms of ability to play. I go with Hakeem, but its not like Hakeem was twice as good or something.
Lol how can you throw out winning? You're basing your pov on the consensus ranking of these players. And the rankings are made according to who the best players are. It goes by who has accomplished the most in the nba. Who is the most decorated player. Who's won thee most championships, mvp, dpoys, allnba, alldenfense, the records, etc. All of which are handed out to the BEST PLAYER ON THE BEST TEAMS.

If the league gave the mvp to the best player, jordan would've won it every year from 87 to 98. Lebron james woulldve won it last year over derrick rose.

[DMAVS41]

Also 97 Bulls...you can't just throw out guys like Bird or West because they played a little defense.....

And then turn around and continue to list a bunch of defense players that were also great offensive player. LOL....so lets get this straight. I can only list guys that pretty much solely played offense (who by the way are just as good or better than the guys you are listing)....but you can list of guys like Hakeem and Pippen and Payton and Howard and Mourning...etc. All of those guys play more offense than than the guys I'm listing played defense.

And even with you listing off all time elite defenders that happened to also be great offensive forces. You can't come up with hardly any examples of the defensive guy being better than the offensive guy. LOL

Lets get specific on one comparison. Nash vs Payton. A perfect example of this debate.

Do you think its crazy for someone to say Nash is/was the better player?

[EnoughSaid]

Scorers are common, while elite defenders are harder to come by. I know that my team will score through ball movement/screens/second chance points. However, I don't know if my team will be able to contain the other team's players.

[97 bulls]

Also 97 Bulls...you can't just throw out guys like Bird or West because they played a little defense.....

And then turn around and continue to list a bunch of defense players that were also great offensive player. LOL....so lets get this straight. I can only list guys that pretty much solely played offense (who by the way are just as good or better than the guys you are listing)....but you can list of guys like Hakeem and Pippen and Payton and Howard and Mourning...etc. All of those guys play more offense than than the guys I'm listing played defense.

And even with you listing off all time elite defenders that happened to also be great offensive forces. You can't come up with hardly any examples of the defensive guy being better than the offensive guy. LOL

Lets get specific on one comparison. Nash vs Payton. A perfect example of this debate.

Do you think its crazy for someone to say Nash is/was the better player?
Off course not. This is our opinion. You disagree with me and thus we converse.

And to answer your question, in my opinion, payton is better. Is it silly to say nash is better? No. I just want to hear your pov.

But your still going by the consensus ranking of nba players. Let me ask you. Do you think those players are ranked according to talent or accomplishments. And pleasee don't say both because they all are extremely talented.

[DMAVS41]

Lol how can you throw out winning? You're basing your pov on the consensus ranking of these players. And the rankings are made according to who the best players are. It goes by who has accomplished the most in the nba. Who is the most decorated player. Who's won thee most championships, mvp, dpoys, allnba, alldenfense, the records, etc. All of which are handed out to the BEST PLAYER ON THE BEST TEAMS.

If the league gave the mvp to the best player, jordan would've won it every year from 87 to 98. Lebron james woulldve won it last year over derrick rose.

No I'm not. I'm not saying that Dirk/Barkley are better than Robinson because of winning. In fact, Barkley never won anything. I'm going off which players I thought were better.

Its not crazy to think that bird/magic/shaq were just better basketball players than Hakeem. Its not crazy to think Dr. J was about as good as KG. Its not crazy to think Thomas was as good or better than Pippen...and on and on.

Has nothing to do with all time rank for me.

I would have taken Dirk over Howard in 09...had nothing to do with winning. Howard made the Finals and Dirk lost in the 2nd round. I'm not doing that at all. I'm just giving you my opinion on these players. And again, the very fact that they are at least debatable pretty much proves my side.

[DMAVS41]

Off course not. This is our opinion. You disagree with me and thus we converse.

And to answer your question, in my opinion, payton is better. Is it silly to say nash is better? I just want to hear your pov.

But your still going by the consensus ranking of nba players. Let me ask you. Do you think those players are ranked according to talent or accomplishments. And pleasee don't say both because they all are extremely talented.

For the last time...I'm not going by any ranking. I'm going by who I think was the better player.

If I had to pick a pg for my team. I'd almost always take Nash over Payton. Just my opinion though. My point is that I can admit its debatable....as should anyone that actually watched them both play. If it is debatable, I don't see how individual defense is more important. Payton is one of the best pg defenders ever....Nash is one of the worst. That is just a fact.

So how could it be debatable given that? And also given that Payton was a damn good offensive player....much beter offensively than Nash was defensively.

Do you think its crazy to say Nash vs Payton as basketball player...forget rankings....is debatable?

[97 bulls]

The main difference as I see it is that your not gonna find very many players top players that weren't effective on both sides of the ball in some way. What you want me to find you dmavs, is a defensive specialists that's in the consensus top 50. Which is just as rare as me asking you to find me an offensive specialts in the top 50. I have a feeling rodman will be in the top 75. And even though I wouldn't even call him a defensive specialist, like a bobby jones or bruce bowen, I guess you could use him.

But I've already given you what my definition of an offensive player/ defensive player. Or I should say specialist is. Bruce bowen is a defensive specialist. Jason terry is an offensive specialist

[97 bulls]

For the last time...I'm not going by any ranking. I'm going by who I think was the better player.

If I had to pick a pg for my team. I'd almost always take Nash over Payton. Just my opinion though. My point is that I can admit its debatable....as should anyone that actually watched them both play. If it is debatable, I don't see how individual defense is more important. Payton is one of the best pg defenders ever....Nash is one of the worst. That is just a fact.

So how could it be debatable given that? And also given that Payton was a damn good offensive player....much beter offensively than Nash was defensively.

Do you think its crazy to say Nash vs Payton as basketball player...forget rankings....is debatable?
No because nash runs a team better. But you keep saying players are regarded as better, where, who, or what are you basing it on? Cuz when you say "regarded" I'm assuming you're referring to what the consensus is.

[DMAVS41]

The main difference as I see it is that your not gonna find very many players top players that weren't effective on both sides of the ball in some way. What you want me to find you dmavs, is a defensive specialists that's in the consensus top 50. Which is just as rare as me asking you to find me an offensive specialts in the top 50. I have a feeling rodman will be in the top 75. And even though I wouldn't even call him a defensive specialist, like a bobby jones or bruce bowen, I guess you could use him.

But I've already given you what my definition of an offensive player/ defensive player. Or I should say specialist is. Bruce bowen is a defensive specialist. Jason terry is an offensive specialist

But Jason Terry can't consistently take over late in games...nor can he consistently even score points night in night out. And its that being able to perform in crunch time that is so valuable in this hypothetical.

I'm not asking for defensive specialists at all. The players you have listed are hardly solely defensive players. In fact, the players you have listed are better two way players than almost all the players I've listed.

[97 bulls]

No I'm not. I'm not saying that Dirk/Barkley are better than Robinson because of winning. In fact, Barkley never won anything. I'm going off which players I thought were better.

Its not crazy to think that bird/magic/shaq were just better basketball players than Hakeem. Its not crazy to think Dr. J was about as good as KG. Its not crazy to think Thomas was as good or better than Pippen...and on and on.

Has nothing to do with all time rank for me.

I would have taken Dirk over Howard in 09...had nothing to do with winning. Howard made the Finals and Dirk lost in the 2nd round. I'm not doing that at all. I'm just giving you my opinion on these players. And again, the very fact that they are at least debatable pretty much proves my side.
How does it being debateable prove your side? I've already explaineed that basketball is a team sport. The smart teams get guys that can make up the definciencies of their stars. You seem to act as if basketball is played 1v1.

[DMAVS41]

No because nash runs a team better. But you keep saying players are regarded as better, where, who, or what are you basing it on? Cuz when you say "regarded" I'm assuming you're referring to what the consensus is.

Not at all. I'm just saying "regarded" as just common opinion here or with people that know basketball.

Nash vs Payton is perfect for this. It gives you exactly what you need. Nash is solely an offensive player. Just the truth. He's a negative defensively...not even average. Payton is one of the best pg defenders ever....and also great offensively.

Not talking about MVP or all time ranking. Just debating as to who the better basketball player was.....I think Nash was ever so slightly better. I'd rather have Nash on my team. At the very least I think we are in agreement that its debatable. And we've reached that conclusion on a lot of players like Barkley/Dirk vs Howard/Robinson/KG....Magic/Bird vs. Hakeem. Thomas vs Pippen...etc.

So my question is simple. If defense is more important, then how come these mainly offensive players are as good as or better than elite defensive players that also play good to great offense? Logically it doesn't work.

[97 bulls]

But Jason Terry can't consistently take over late in games...nor can he consistently even score points night in night out. And its that being able to perform in crunch time that is so valuable in this hypothetical.

I'm not asking for defensive specialists at all. The players you have listed are hardly solely defensive players. In fact, the players you have listed are better two way players than almost all the players I've listed.
But again, as tpols said. There really is no such thing as a one dimensional all-time great. Other than magic and russell. And you threw that out. I named rodman. I'm sure wallace will be in the hall.

[DMAVS41]

How does it being debateable prove your side? I've already explaineed that basketball is a team sport. The smart teams get guys that can make up the definciencies of their stars. You seem to act as if basketball is played 1v1.

This is an individual thread. Basketball is absolutely a team sport and it takes a team to win.

But we absolutely can compare players to players in terms of their impact.

It proves my side because I'm giving you a bunch of examples of strictly offensive players being as valuable or more valuable than all time great defensive players that also played great offense.

So if individual defense was truly more important as you claim, then the defensive guys should be winning these comparisons each time.

Here is another way to look at it. The gap between Nash and Payton on offense is huge. As big as it could get. If Payton is a 10 on defense....Nash is a 0 or 1. The gap between their offense is not nearly as big as the gap between their defense. Not even close.

So if defense really matters more...then why isn't Payton easily a better basketball player than Nash?

Do you understand that?

[DMAVS41]

But again, as tpols said. There really is no such thing as a one dimensional all-time great. Other than magic and russell. And you threw that out. I named rodman. I'm sure wallace will be in the hall.

How one dimensional? I consider Barkley pretty one dimensional....he's definitely an all time great. Same with Dirk. definitely an all time great.

You can't have it only your way. You can't list off guys like Hakeem and Pippen and Payton and Howard and Robinson as your examples....and expect me to solely counter with guys that didn't play any defense...even though I actually kind of did. Your guys all played good to great offense....so some of my examples deserve to have played a little defense. Regardless though:

Nash over Payton
Barkley over Robinson
Dirk over Howard
Bird over Hakeem
Thomas over Pippen
Barkley over Mourning
Dirk over Ewing
Dr. J over KG

My guys all play less defense than your guys play offense....and at the very least, every single one of those comparisons above is debatable.....the truth is that the offensive guys are just better than the defensive guys as a whole on that list above.

[97 bulls]

Not at all. I'm just saying "regarded" as just common opinion here or with people that know basketball.

Nash vs Payton is perfect for this. It gives you exactly what you need. Nash is solely an offensive player. Just the truth. He's a negative defensively...not even average. Payton is one of the best pg defenders ever....and also great offensively.

Not talking about MVP or all time ranking. Just debating as to who the better basketball player was.....I think Nash was ever so slightly better. I'd rather have Nash on my team. At the very least I think we are in agreement that its debatable. And we've reached that conclusion on a lot of players like Barkley/Dirk vs Howard/Robinson/KG....Magic/Bird vs. Hakeem. Thomas vs Pippen...etc.

So my question is simple. If defense is more important, then how come these mainly offensive players are as good as or better than elite defensive players that also play good to great offense? Logically it doesn't work.
And again, its because the teams go out and get players that can coverr nashes ass. So his lack of defense doesn't hurt them as much. Until the playoffs come around.

And then you also must understand that nash isn't just a guy with a wet jumper. He runs the team. He's crafty, he scores in different ways. As well as sets up his teammates. If he was just a shooter, he'd be steve kerr. A specialists. So to answer your question, its not just nashes ability to put the ball in the basket vs paytons defense and offense. Its nashes ability to put the ball in the basket and run a team that makes this debatable.

[DMAVS41]

But again, as tpols said. There really is no such thing as a one dimensional all-time great. Other than magic and russell. And you threw that out. I named rodman. I'm sure wallace will be in the hall.

You named Rodman.

Don't you think then a fair comparison would be Dirk or Barkley vs Rodman. Rodman was a great defensive player....one of the best ever.

Would you take Rodman over Dirk or Barkley?

Edit:

And you are accusing me of using "all time rankings" over ability? The only player you have really named that fits your assertion at all is Russell. Is there another player in NBA history that gained more on his reputation/ranking than Russell due to team accomplishments and how people rank? LOL

[DMAVS41]

And again, its because the teams go out and get players that can coverr nashes ass. So his lack of defense doesn't hurt them as much. Until the playoffs come around.

And then you also must understand that nash isn't just a guy with a wet jumper. He runs the team. He's crafty, he scores in different ways. As well as sets up his teammates. If he was just a shooter, he'd be steve kerr. A specialists. So to answer your question, its not just nashes ability to put the ball in the basket vs paytons defense and offense. Its nashes ability to put the ball in the basket and run a team that makes this debatable.

And that is offense. Payton also can run a team and do positive things offensively. And his defense (the thing you claim is more important individually) is light years beyond Nash.

The gap is simply much bigger defensively than it is offensively...that is just a fact. So if defense is truly more important....and that is where Nash is horrible and Payton is one of the best.....

How can it be close? It proves that defense isn't more important individually...if it was, Payton would be superior...quite easily actually. And who has covered up Nash's defense? Amare? Joe Johnson?...Dirk?..Finley?

Please...Nash has played with poor defensive supporting casts throughout his career.

[DMAVS41]

Another good example T-Mac vs Artest in the the mide 00s....I think 03 and 04 are probably good years.

Artest won DPOY in 03 maybe? One of those years.

I'd take t-mac over artest....again, artest was a great defensive force and also a solid offensive player back then.

[catch24]

Another good example T-Mac vs Artest in the the mide 00s....I think 03 and 04 are probably good years.

Don't think this would be one. Artest wasn't even in Mac's stratosphere as a scorer...nor as a playmaker. Artest on the otherhand was definitely a better defender BUT even then, Tracy was an average (and some nights above average) defender. His help and weakside d was actually pretty solid, as was his man-to-man (due to his length obviously).

There's a reason Mcgrady was player of month 2x+ and Artest 0 during the 2002-2003 season.

Pippen actually got a couple himself during the 1994-95 season.

[DMAVS41]

Don't think this would be one. Artest wasn't even in Mac's stratosphere as a scorer...nor as a playmaker. Artest on the otherhand was definitely a better defender BUT even then, Tracy was an average (and some nights above average) defender. His help and weakside d was actually pretty solid, as was his man-to-man (due to his length obviously).

There's a reason Mcgrady was player of month 2x+ and Artest 0 during the 2002-2003 season.

Pippen actually got a couple himself during the 1994-95 season.

Artest won DPOY one of those years....and was also putting up quality numbers. Something like 18/4/4 as well.

T-mac was ok defensively....just like Artest was ok offensively. Absolutely works.

And if it doesn't....just more evidence on my side if the DPOY that also is a pretty solid offensive player can't compare.

[catch24]

Artest won DPOY one of those years....and was also putting up quality numbers. Something like 18/4/4 as well.

T-mac was ok defensively....just like Artest was ok offensively. Absolutely works.

And if it doesn't....just more evidence on my side if the DPOY that also is a pretty solid offensive player can't compare.

This is a classic example of over-valuing a players impact...a perimeter players defensive impact of all things.

Hakeem and Artest both won DPOY's. Which player was more impactful?

[DMAVS41]

This is a classic example of over-valuing a players impact...a perimeter players defensive impact of all things.

Hakeem and Artest both won DPOY's. Which player was more impactful?

I'm not debating that. I totally agree. Kind of my point...the initial hypothetical was about a player that could guard 4 positions. That would be Artest.

And this just makes my point. A DPOY that was extremely versatile defensively and was also a solid offensive player....isn't even a good enough example.

LOL.....its obvious at this point that individual offense trumps individual defense on the whole....especially in the hypothetical offered up here.

[97 bulls]

And that is offense. Payton also can run a team and do positive things offensively. And his defense (the thing you claim is more important individually) is light years beyond Nash.

The gap is simply much bigger defensively than it is offensively...that is just a fact. So if defense is truly more important....and that is where Nash is horrible and Payton is one of the best.....

How can it be close? It proves that defense isn't more important individually...if it was, Payton would be superior...quite easily actually. And who has covered up Nash's defense? Amare? Joe Johnson?...Dirk?..Finley?

Please...Nash has played with poor defensive supporting casts throughout his career.
The suns went out and got raja bell from the sixers. And he for the most par took on the tough guard assignments.

And I see your point dmavs. But as I said from the jump the players mentiined are great in other facets. Not jus scoring. Remember when I said that dirk wasn't that bad of a defender and a solid rebounder considering where he spends a lot of his time? The gguys mentioned aren't specialsts. They brought more to the table than just the ability to score.

[catch24]

I'm not debating that. I totally agree. Kind of my point...the initial hypothetical was about a player that could guard 4 positions. That would be Artest.

And this just makes my point. A DPOY that was extremely versatile defensively and was also a solid offensive player....isn't even a good enough example.

LOL.....its obvious at this point that individual offense trumps individual defense on the whole....especially in the hypothetical offered up here.

For certain players, yes. Would you say Nash's offensive impact had more value than Hakeem's defensive impact?

[DMAVS41]

For certain players, yes. Would you say Nash's offensive impact had more value than Hakeem's defensive impact?

Close. If you told me that Hakeem's offense and Nash's defense were equal. It would be close for me.

I'd probably lean towards Hakeem's defense being of higher value, but I think Hakeem was probably one of the 10 best defenders ever.

Nash is hardly a top 10 offensive player ever. At least I don't think he is.

[catch24]

Close. If you told me that Hakeem's offense and Nash's defense were equal. It would be close for me.

I'd probably lean towards Hakeem's defense being of higher value, but I think Hakeem was probably one of the 10 best defenders ever.

Why would I make that claim? You know that isn't true. Not even close really.


Nash is hardly a top 10 offensive player ever. At least I don't think he is.

Right, but you didn't put a caveat above. You just got finished saying, its obvious at this point that individual offense trumps individual defense on the whole....

:confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

Why would I make that claim? You know that isn't true. Not even close really.



Right, but you didn't put a caveat above. You just got finished saying, its obvious at this point that individual offense trumps individual defense on the whole....

:confusedshrug:

Wait. What?

We were comparing strictly Nash's offense to Hakeem's defense. Meaning that what Nash does on defense and what Hakeem does on offense does not matter.

So for that hypothetical to work you have ignore the other sides. And in that scenario I would probably lean slightly towards Hakeem...I guess. Not sure. Its hard because Nash is a great player and honestly is a negative defensively. If Hakeem was a negative offensively....I just doubt I'd think Hakeem was the better player.

Its just a broad statement. On the whole meaning that more often than not. You have to compare similar players. If Hakeem is a top 10 defender ever....compare his defense to a top ten offensive force ever. Stuff like that.

[DMAVS41]

The suns went out and got raja bell from the sixers. And he for the most par took on the tough guard assignments.

And I see your point dmavs. But as I said from the jump the players mentiined are great in other facets. Not jus scoring. Remember when I said that dirk wasn't that bad of a defender and a solid rebounder considering where he spends a lot of his time? The gguys mentioned aren't specialsts. They brought more to the table than just the ability to score.

true, but the guys i'm mentioning are way more one dimensional than they guys you are mentioning.

howard, robinson, payton, pippen, hakeem, mourning, kg...LOL...they are far more two dimensional than guys like nash, dirk, barkley, magic, thomas...etc.

This is what I don't get with you. You are the one listing players that are hardly specialists. Your guys are far more two dimensional....and the offensive guys still come out looking as good or better on the whole.

So you can list Mourning...a guy that put up like 20/10 in his prime and played great defense...and you have issue with me listing Dirk? Doesn't make any bit of sense....sorry.

[catch24]

Wait. What?

You said this:


If you told me that Hakeem's offense and Nash's defense were equal. It would be close for me.

Again, why I would tell you that?


We were comparing strictly Nash's offense to Hakeem's defense. Meaning that what Nash does on defense and what Hakeem does on offense does not matter.

Alright.


So for that hypothetical to work you have ignore the other sides.

Wait, what are you even saying right now? My question was straight forward: Is Nash's offense better than Hakeem's defense? Just a simple yes or no.

[DMAVS41]

You said this:



Again, why I would tell you that?



Alright.



Wait, what are you even saying right now? My question was straight forward: Is Nash's offense better than Hakeem's defense? Just a simple yes or no.

And I'm telling you its hard to say. Its basically asking would hakeem be a better player than Nash if he couldn't play any offense at all.

So I guess I'd have to say no. Nash's offense is more valuable to me. Give Hakeem the offensive equivalent of Nash's defense and I'd most likely think Nash was the superior player.

[catch24]

And I'm telling you its hard to say. Its basically asking would hakeem be a better player than Nash if he couldn't play any offense at all.

How does my question imply that? First of all, Hakeem was an elite offensive player.


So I guess I'd have to say no. Nash's offense is more valuable to me. Give Hakeem the offensive equivalent of Nash's defense and I'd most likely think Nash was the superior player.

So Nash, who according to you isn't even a top 10 offensive player, has more impact than Olajuwon defensively (who at the very least is top 5-7 on that end)?

[DMAVS41]

How does my question imply that? First of all, Hakeem was an elite offensive player.



So Nash, who according to you isn't even a top 10 offensive player, has more impact than Olajuwon defensively (who at the very least is top 5-7 on that end)?


Let me explain. Nash is one of the worst defensive players ever. He's a negative. He below average and hurts your team. Yet even with that, he's a great player overall because of how amazing he is offensively.

So in order for this to be fair, I'd have to give Hakeem the equivalent offensively that Nash is defensively. And what would Nash's defense translate to offensively for a center?

I'd say something like 7 ppg and 1 apg. If Hakeem had those offensive numbers and remained the defensive/rebounding force that he was? I'd take Nash.

That is my point. Do you understand?

[tpols]

How does my question imply that? First of all, Hakeem was an elite offensive player.

So Nash, who according to you isn't even a top 10 offensive player, has more impact than Olajuwon defensively (who at the very least is top 5-7 on that end)?
He's just saying that Hakeem is too good of an offensive player to fit the description of a 'defensive player'. Obviously Hakeem was a much better player than Nash and his offense was a big part of that. He's just isolating their respective strengths[hakemm and defense and nash and offense] for the purposes of this thread's title.

[catch24]

He's just saying that Hakeem is too good of an offensive player to fit the description of a 'defensive player'. Obviously Hakeem was a much better player than Nash and his offense was a big part of that. He's just isolating their respective strengths[hakemm and defense and nash and offense] for the purposes of this thread's title.

I get what he's saying. What I don't understand is why Hakeem's offensive abilities have to be eliminated just because Nash is/was putrid as a defender. For the sake of the debate (or question I asked), yeah sure..but why even bring it up in the first place? That wasn't what I asked. It's not relevant to the question at all.

[DMAVS41]

He's just saying that Hakeem is too good of an offensive player to fit the description of a 'defensive player'. Obviously Hakeem was a much better player than Nash and his offense was a big part of that. He's just isolating their respective strengths[hakemm and defense and nash and offense] for the purposes of this thread's title.

exactly. take away hakeem's offense and think of him strictly as a defensive player and I'd take nash over him.

thats fair because nash already makes absolutely no impact defensively. so its only fair in this comparison for hakeem to make little to no impact offensively.

so then we could compare strictly an offensive player vs strictly a defensive player. and "on the whole"...meaning most of the time...i'm going with the offensive guy....especially when this hypothetical said the offensive guy is great late in the clutch.

[catch24]

Let me explain. Nash is one of the worst defensive players ever. He's a negative. He below average and hurts your team. Yet even with that, he's a great player overall because of how amazing he is offensively.

So in order for this to be fair, I'd have to give Hakeem the equivalent offensively that Nash is defensively. And what would Nash's defense translate to offensively for a center?

I'd say something like 7 ppg and 1 apg. If Hakeem had those offensive numbers and remained the defensive/rebounding force that he was? I'd take Nash.

That is my point. Do you understand?

So as a GM, you'd take Nash's offense over Hakeem's defense when building a team. Correct?

[DMAVS41]

I get what he's saying. What I don't understand is why Hakeem's offensive abilities have to be eliminated just because Nash is/was putrid as a defender. For the sake of the debate (or question I asked), yeah sure..but why even bring it up in the first place? That wasn't what I asked. It's not relevant to the question at all.


It is absolutely relevant. The main reason Hakeem was better than Nash was his offense. This is about offense vs defense. You can't list hakeem like he's some defensive specialist. the dude is one of the greatest offensive players ever. hell, hakeem's offense is probably better than nash's actually.

you asked about defense. so offense doesn't matter. its a 0. so if hakeem was a 0 on offense...like nash is a 0 on defense.

give me nash. he'd be the more valuable player in my opinion. which is exactly what this thread is about. offense vs defense individually.

[knicksman]

So as a GM, you'd take Nash's offense over Hakeem's defense when building a team. Correct?

hakeem without offense is more like mutombo or ben so who would you take, mutombo or nash?

[DMAVS41]

So as a GM, you'd take Nash's offense over Hakeem's defense when building a team. Correct?

yes. I'd take what nash gives you offensively over just about any straight up defensive specialist ever.

i think what nash provides is simply more valuable than what a one dimensional defender can....even if that defender is as great as hakeem was defensively.

[DMAVS41]

hakeem without offense is more like mutombo or ben so who would you take, mutombo or nash?

i was just posting this. exactly.

[catch24]

You can't list hakeem like he's some defensive specialist. i

Did you watch Hakeem play? He's easily among the top 10 as an individual defender. He was a specialist on both sides.


you asked about defense. so offense doesn't matter.[ its a 0. so if hakeem was a 0 on offense...like nash is a 0 on defense.

Again, I get that. But why even bring it up? I'm simply asking you to rate Nash's offense and Hakeem's defense. That's it. Don't bring up Hakeem's offense and Nash's defense.


give me nash. he'd be the more valuable player in my opinion

Totally disagree, but hey..you answered it.

[catch24]

hakeem without offense is more like mutombo or ben so who would you take, mutombo or nash?

He was a better defender than both. I'd take a center of that caliber over Nash and his offense.

We know Hakeem's defense was elite on poor and great teams..when you take into account the Suns' offense (or pace), would you still consider Nash an elite offensive player..on say, the Mavericks? Back when he was playing with Dirk.

[DMAVS41]

Did you watch Hakeem play? He's easily among the top 10 as an individual defender. He was a specialist on both sides.



Again, I get that. But why even bring it up? I'm simply asking you to rate Nash's offense and Hakeem's defense. That's it. Don't bring up Hakeem's offense and Nash's defense.



Totally disagree, but hey..you answered it.


i brought it up just for myself kind of...i was talking out loud. yes, i did watch hakeem. he's a top 10 defender ever. totally agree. i do think hakeem gambled a bit much and wasn't always sound in his team defense...but that is an argument for a different day.

but you have to think about it in terms of what hakeem's value would have been without much offense. like a wallace or mutombo...or a rodman.

i personally feel nash is more valuable than those guys.

and if you feel hakeem was just that good defensively and top 5 or top 10 ever. then lets compare a top 5 or ten offensive force to hakeem defensively to make it more fair.

we dont' have to because i'd still take nash, but it sounds like you are really high on hakeem defensively so i don't want that to cloud the debate.

where do you rank hakeem defensively all time?

edit:

specialist usually means like a one dimensional player. like bowen or rodman. i meant it in terms that a huge part of what make hakeem great was his offense. that is all. i wasn't saying hakeem wasn't a great defender or offensive player.

[catch24]

i brought it up just for myself kind of...i was talking out loud. yes, i did watch hakeem. he's a top 10 defender ever. totally agree. .

Had to rib ya' there. You know why I asked that question. :lol


but you have to think about it in terms of what hakeem's value would have been without much offense. like a wallace or mutombo...or a rodman.

Let me ask you something. Would you take Nash's offense, on a slower paced team (i.e., Dallas back in the early 00's) over Hakeem's individual d and defensive rebounding? I sure as hell wouldn't


and if you feel hakeem was just that good defensively and top 5 or top 10 ever. then lets compare a top 5 or ten offensive force to hakeem defensively to make it more fair.

I wouldn't take his defense over Kareem, Magic, Shaq, Jordan, or Bird's offense. Those are my top 5 offensive players.


where do you rank hakeem defensively all time?

I don't have a definitive list, but it's easily anywhere from 5-7 all-time.



specialist

I view the term differently. Something you're elite at. Not singularly, but overall; different qualities you excel in.

[DMAVS41]

Had to rib ya' there. You know why I asked that question. :lol



Let me ask you something. Would you take Nash's offense, on a slower paced team (i.e., Dallas back in the early 00's) over Hakeem's individual d and defensive rebounding? I sure as hell wouldn't



I wouldn't take his defense over Kareem, Magic, Shaq, Jordan, or Bird's offense. Those are my top 5 offensive players.



I don't have a definitive list, but it's easily anywhere from 5-7 all-time.




I view the term differently. Something you're elite at. Not singularly, but overall; different qualities you excel in.

Yes. I'd still take nash in almost any scenario given hakeem was just a one sided player.

I'll ask you. Where would you rank Hakeem if everything stayed the same defensively/rebounding but he scored 7 ppg and averaged 1 apg. He didn't have an offensive game really. Kind of like Ben Wallace. You couldn't run an offense through him and he wasn't a very good passer. Basically Ben Wallace on offense and then whatever you think Hakeem was defensively.

He was pretty much strictly a defensive player. Would you take him over Dirk? Barkley? Nash? Barry? Thomas? Mullin? Melo? Amare?...you get the idea.

[SCdac]

there are more "one dimensional" players than just the top-50 or so players of all time. you guys are getting hung up on all-time greats. think about it like this...

If Dwight Howard (19 years old, minimal, raw offense) and Andrea Bargnani (not much of a defender, but loads of offensive potential) were in the same draft... which guy would you choose first, and why?

If you had to choose between prime Shane Battier and prime Kevin Martin... would Martin's 20+ ppg offense be that much more valuable to a team (bball being a team game) than Shane's excellent defense (which largely doesn't show up in the stat sheets)?

If you had to choose between prime Bruce Bowen and prime Jamal Crawford... would anybody really be taken aback if you chose Bowen? knowing what you know about how devoted to D Bowen was and how much of a chucker Jamal was, albeit a capable scorer.

just some different examples... I realize it strays from the question of "who would you build with", but looking at it from different angles, I don't think it's difficult to grasp the importance of defense even on an individual level. Offense doesn't always trump defense IMO.

[DMAVS41]

there are more "one dimensional" players than just the top-50 or so players of all time. you guys are getting hung up on all-time greats. think about it like this...

If Dwight Howard (19 years old, minimal, raw offense) and Andrea Bargnani (not much of a defender, but loads of offensive potential) were in the same draft... which guy would you choose first, and why?

If you had to choose between prime Shane Battier and prime Kevin Martin... would Martin's 20+ ppg offense be that much more valuable to a team (bball being a team game) than Shane's excellent defense (which largely doesn't show up in the stat sheets)?

If you had to choose between prime Bruce Bowen and prime Jamal Crawford... would anybody really be taken aback if you chose Bowen? knowing what you know about how devoted to D Bowen was and how much of a chucker Jamal was, albeit a capable scorer.

just some different examples... I realize it strays from the question of "who would you build with", but looking at it from different angles, I don't think it's difficult to grasp the importance of defense even on an individual level. Offense doesn't always trump defense IMO.


true. good points. but that is kind of a different discussion because the hypothetical was about a player that could carry the offense in crunch time which implies elite offensive players.

also, some of the guys you mention are some of the best defensive players of their time. Bruce Bowen for example was an elite perimeter defender....probably what? top 3 of his era? crawford isn't even in the top 30 offensive players probably. I think there needs to some type of balance in how these comparisons are made.

[catch24]

Yes. I'd still take nash in almost any scenario given hakeem was just a one sided player.

You have to take into account the rules changes and incredibly high pace Nash's teams played. I'm not really sure why you would still take him. His playmaking was great in Dallas, but was it award-worthy like Hakeem's defense? At 30, Nash went from barely making third-string all-nba teams to becoming an MVP candidate. Hmm, what?


I'll ask you. Where would you rank Hakeem if everything stayed the same defensively/rebounding but he scored 7 ppg and averaged 1 apg.

He'd be an even better defender and rebounder, that's for sure. I don't know though. A wild guess and I'd say anywhere from 30-40. But again...you take away a large portion off anyone's ability and they're significantly worse.


Would you take him over Dirk? Barkley? Nash? Barry? Thomas? Mullin? Melo? Amare?...you get the idea.

I would take him over Nash, Barry, Mullin, Melo and Amare. Barkley and Dirk though? No. They're both regarded as the cr

[SCdac]

true. good points. but that is kind of a different discussion because the hypothetical was about a player that could carry the offense in crunch time which implies elite offensive players.

also, some of the guys you mention are some of the best defensive players of their time. Bruce Bowen for example was an elite perimeter defender....probably what? top 5 of his era? crawford isn't even in the top 30 offensive players probably. I think there needs to some type of balance in how these comparisons are made.

But the fact that Jamal Crawford can be such a good offensive player (all things considered)... and still not really be regarded as anything special, to me only emphasizes the fact that offense can be overrated if you try hard enough, and can not always indicate which player is more valuable (with defense being so hard to measure).

Also, GM's do value defense... let's not forget that... as evidence, when the Houston Rockets traded a #8 pick, Rudy Gay, for Shane Battier in an attempt to make the team more of a contender. That's almost like a "offense for defense" swap.

what about prime Ben Gordon vs. prime Bruce Bowen? Is that a better comparison? .... I think I'd honestly still take Bowen.... *knowing what I know about both (which is easy to do in hindsight).

DMAVS, who would you draft rookie Dwight Howard (who's offense was pretty mediocre) or rookie Andrea Bargnani? ... Personally, I'd take Howard. What he would provide to the particular model I think is successful in basketball (a defense oriented team) is better, IMO, even if Bargnani's shot/release/touch/offensive skills are better.

[DMAVS41]

But the fact that Jamal Crawford can be such a good offensive player (all things considered)... and still not really be regarded as anything special, to me only emphasizes the fact that offense can be overrated if you try hard enough, and can not always indicate which player is more valuable (with defense being so hard to measure).

Also, GM's do value defense... let's not forget that... as evidence, when the Houston Rockets traded a #8 pick, Rudy Gay, for Shane Battier in an attempt to make the team more of a contender. That's almost like a "offense for defense" swap.

what about prime Ben Gordon vs. prime Bruce Bowen? Is that a better comparison? .... I think I'd honestly still take Bowen.... *knowing what I know about both (which is easy to do in hindsight).

DMAVS, who would you draft rookie Dwight Howard (who's offense was pretty mediocre) or rookie Andrea Bargnani? ... Personally, I'd take Howard. What he would provide to the particular model I think is successful in basketball (a defense oriented team) is better, IMO, even if Bargnani's shot/release/touch/offensive skills are better.

Drafting? I'd take Howard for sure. That is an altogether different question. And a good one, but just not one that is directly related to this conversation.

I'd have different opinions comparing generic offensive players to good to great defenders. In the hypothetical...it implied elite offensive players vs elite defensive players.

Having said that though, I think there needs to be better balance with your comparisons. I consider Bruce Bowen to probably be a top 5 or so small forward defender ever....so I don't think its fair to compare him to the likes of kevin martin, crawford, or gordon....although i'm not sure that bowen is significantly more valuable than any of those guys...but i don't really want to debate that because that is not what this is about.

[SCdac]

Drafting? I'd take Howard for sure. That is an altogether different question. And a good one, but just not one that is directly related to this conversation.

How is it not directly related to the question? It's basically exactly what the question is. "who would you build with?" ... that's exactly what a draft is.

None the less... Bargs and Howard are both the obvious best picks in this hypothetical draft... yet, you'd take Howard? but why? Isn't Bargs offense more important? He can shoot from anywhere on the floor.

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=catch24]You have to take into account the rules changes and incredibly high pace Nash's teams played. I'm not really sure why you would still take him. His playmaking was great in Dallas, but was it award-worthy like Hakeem's defense? At 30, Nash went from barely making third-string all-nba teams to becoming an MVP candidate. Hmm, what?



He'd be an even better defender and rebounder, that's for sure. I don't know though. A wild guess and I'd say anywhere from 30-40. But again...you take away a large portion off anyone's ability and they're significantly worse.



I would take him over Nash, Barry, Mullin, Melo and Amare. Barkley and Dirk though? No. They're both regarded as the cr

[DMAVS41]

How is it not directly related to the question? It's basically exactly what the question is. "who would you build with?" ... that's exactly what a draft is.

None the less... Bargs and Howard are both the obvious best picks in this hypothetical draft... yet, you'd take Howard? but why? Isn't Bargs offense more important? He can shoot from anywhere on the floor.


well, you can't draft a player that right off the bat comes out and can consistently carry you offensively and is also great in crunch time.

if you could? give me that guy over the defensive specialist every single time.

so I'd rather build around the offensive player.

drafting isn't a great example because there is too much unknown. this is about known qualities.

[catch24]

So doesn't that make offense generally more important individually. You rank hakeem in the top 7 all time on defense. And I think its pretty clear that a guy like Barkley or Dirk would easily be better than him if Hakeem had the offensive equivalent of what those two guys did defensively.

Better offense>>>better defense. I never claimed otherwise. The objective of the game is to outscore your opponent. All I've been really arguing is that it's not a forgone conclusion. Hakeem is one of those exceptions.

[DMAVS41]

Better offense>>>better defense. I never claimed otherwise. The objective of the game is to outscore your opponent. All I've been really arguing is that it's not a forgon conclusion. Hakeem is one of those exceptions.

Of course there are exceptions...totally agree.

[SCdac]

well, you can't draft a player that right off the bat comes out and can consistently carry you offensively and is also great in crunch time.

if you could? give me that guy over the defensive specialist every single time.

so I'd rather build around the offensive player.

So now, you'd choose Bargnani after all?

Why did you say "of course Howard"

We're not talking about finished products... I'm asking, if you had to build with a rookie Bargnani or rookie Howard... which one?