Is defense an overrated argument?

[hateraid]

I'm not saying playing defense is overrated but I often see that player X is better than player Y due to player X was a better defender. What I also think is a great offensive player sometimes negates the lack of defense.

Here's a list of players who are argued to be "average" defenders whom I've seen this used against:

Magic
Shaq
Nash
Barkley
Webber

Granted some of those names never had much team success but here is a list of players who were great defenders who were "average" offensive players

Mutombo
Mourning
Robertson
Artest

That is on the flip side but if defense was a primary argument then why aren't these players ranked higher to most?

Thoughts

[Young X]

Individual offense>>Individual defense - ESPECIALLY when talking about guards. If defense and offense were equal then Ben Wallace would be better than Steve Nash.

[hateraid]

Individual offense>>Individual defense - ESPECIALLY when talking about guards. If defense and offense were equal then Ben Wallace would be better than Steve Nash.

I agree fully. But it seems that excellence in offense is always negated by the other player is a better defender
Take the thread Barkley vs. Garnett. The main argument for taking Garnett is he's a better defender. To me this belittles Barkley's offensive dominace

[SyRyanYang]

Everybody can play defense. The difference between an elite defender and an average defender isn't as big.

[TheReal Kendall]

Are we talking bout 1v1 Defense or Rim protector Defense?

I think that in the game of basketball X-player can torch Y-player at any given day.

Meaning that some players have off days and then some days they just can't miss no matter how good you play them.

On this site and generally in the public's eye people glorify offense more than Defense.

And most of the time when someone on here is saying x-player is better than y-player cause lack of Defense that person is trying to big up their fav player or have some kinda agenda or hate towards x-player.

In some cases Offense is greater than Defense.

Most coaches would sacrifice Defense for Offense.

[ThaRegul8r]

On the whole, defense doesn't seem to matter unless it helps to further the agenda. Most people think defense < offense as far as individual players are concerned, and usually only invoke defense if that player is the better offensive player to begin with. Rarely will you ever see anyone say "Player X was a better defender than Player Y, so Player X is better," if Player Y was the better offensive player. In that case, what you'll see is, "Player Y > Player X offensively more than Player X > Player Y defensively, and individual offense > individual defense."

[SyRyanYang]

I agree fully. But it seems that excellence in offense is always negated by the other player is a better defender
Take the thread Barkley vs. Garnett. The main argument for taking Garnett is he's a better defender. To me this belittles Barkley's offensive dominace

We all agree individual defense is overrated But KG was an excellent defense anchor.

[Young X]

I agree fully. But it seems that excellence in offense is always negated by the other player is a better defender
Take the thread Barkley vs. Garnett. The main argument for taking Garnett is he's a better defender. To me this belittles Barkley's offensive dominace
Yup, this might sound dumb, but look at Kobe's 81 point game, can any defender in NBA history come close to having the equivalent of an 81 point game on defense - impact wise?

[hateraid]

We all agree individual defense is overrated But KG was an excellent defense anchor.

I agree. But to take him over a player who had a clear advantage in offense for that reason seems a little overrated in my eyes. I would choose the offensive force over the defensive anchor 10 out of 10 times

[ThaRegul8r]

Everybody can play defense.

Yet this isn't borne out on the court during actual games, in actuality. I explicitly remember it being said of Amare Stoudemire, for instance, that he didn't have the ability to read and react to what offenses were doing at the NBA level.

[97 bulls]

I think the offense vs defense is used fairly. You cant totally dismiss the defensive side of the ball. Ive seen coaches bench players due lack of defense.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Take the thread Barkley vs. Garnett. The main argument for taking Garnett is he's a better defender. To me this belittles Barkley's offensive dominace


You obviously have to be good as a team on both sides of the floor to win a title. To me, Barkley's scoring output can be more easily replaced/compensated for than can Garnetts defense. Not to say anyone could be Sir Charles, but generally there have been more guys who can pour in points than guys who can play Garnett level D, plus I think teams in general can collectively compensate for not having a high scorer easier than they can protect the rim like KG. Then you add in the fact that KG was more capable as an offensive player than Barkley was as a defender, and thats why you have a lot of people choosing KG.

[97 bulls]

Yup, this might sound dumb, but look at Kobe's 81 point game, can any defender in NBA history come close to having the equivalent of an 81 point game on defense - impact wise?
How bout Scottie Pippens defensive Job on John Stockton and the Utah Jazz. The Bulls won 96-54. Which is the largest margin of victory in an NBA finals. Thanks to Pippens defense. I remember reading that Pippen in some way accounted for 20 of the Jazz 26 TOs. His +/- was +42. He drew charges, steals, blocked a shot, played help, played great man D, rebounded, he was everywhere. It was so bad that Jerry Sloan sent tapes to the league accusing Pippen of illegal defense.

I use this game because Pippen only scored 10 pts. But dominated the game

[PHILA]

Barkley's scoring output

He was also a great passer who was doubled basically every time he touched the ball. Jim Lynam's isolation offense in Philadelphia was based on Charles drawing the defense to get other teammates a free shot. He was also dominant on the offensive glass and in transition, though he could be a bit of a ball stopper at times on the perimeter. This mainly happened when the defense wasn't taking his bait and the shooters weren't hitting from the outside. In one year (1991), after their starting PG went down early, they had only one legitimate 3 pt. threat on the roster in Hersey Hawkins.

He was also robbed of the 1990 MVP. He had 11 more first place votes than Magic, and 17 more than Jordan. I'm sure the brawl at the end of the season may have had something do with it. To balance out all the first place votes he got, I believe some others left him completely off their ballot. Magic even said he was shocked to win it, and Jordan said he expected Barkley to win. Some of the writers were probably looking for an excuse not to give it to him, though it didn't help that him and a fan got involved on his way into the tunnel.

Others also believe Jordan deserved it. While I am not saying he was on par with Jordan, keep in mind Jordan had a better team around him than Barkley. In the end, the Sixers were better than the Bulls offensively, defensively, & in victory margin. They actually had the 5th best MOV in the NBA, 3rd in TOV%, & 4th in FT/FGA. Jordan was clearly the NBA's best player, but I also believe the Sixers may have at least been able to push the series to at least 6 games if Derek Smith was healthy. While Hersey played him tough, he had no chance at effectively stopping him. Plus in Game 4 the Bulls won in part due to Ed Nealy keeping Barkley off the offensive glass for several possessions. This shows me how valuable his rebounding was to their offense, in addition to him commanding a double team nearly every single time he touched the ball.

The main thing is depth on the roster. Outside of Ron Anderson in the playoffs (D. Smith injured) they had poor depth and the Bulls role players were utilized better by the triangle offense, whereas the Sixers primarily ran an isolation type offense based on Charles drawing a double team. Bulls had BJ, Paxson, & Hodges who could light it up from the outside. On the Sixers, Hersey Hawkins was the only main player who was a good 3 pt. shooter. Also Scott Brooks, though he played limited minutes.






Philadelphia Daily News - April 23, 1990

Mahorn wondered if the brawl might cost Barkley some MVP ballots, even if the media panel's votes had to be in by yesterday, even if the majority of the panel probably had decided long before last Thursday.

"Some people file their taxes at the last minute," Mahorn said. "Maybe there are people voting at the last minute, too. You never know."



Philadelphia Daily News - March 30, 1990

"Look at the candidates for MVP and the MVPs of the past," said Sixers swingman Derek Smith. "They've always had an all-star teammate or two. Without Charles, this basketball team is way down there."



Philadelphia Daily News - April 09, 1990

"Charles Barkley may not have been named Player of the Week or Player of the Month," said Derek Smith, "but if he's not the MVP, they ought to abolish the award and never give it out again."



Philadelphia Daily News - May 03, 1990

"What happens is, Charles gives you legitimacy just by going on the court," said Sixers general manager John Nash. "He goes out there with four other guys and you have a chance to win. But two years ago, we didn't have a complementary group that was nearly as productive.

"Some of our best games have come when he has not been the leading scorer, because even when he doesn't score, he rebounds. He always rebounds."

Said Barkley: "I can lift other guys. If that didn't work in the past, it was because there wasn't enough to lift. But I knew we had enough this year."

"He brings a spirit to me," Mahorn said. "He gets so emotional, if you're not emotional with him, he'll head-butt you, knock your head off. Sometimes you have to hold him back a little, pull in his reins, so he stays effective. But that's the way he is."




St. Paul Pioneer Press - Apr 29, 1990

Jordan is on record as saying he would vote for Charles Barkley as the MVP this season. A worthy choice, given the way Barkley has elevated both his game and his team. But Jordan says that's not why he would pick him. "Barkley thinks he's an outcast," Jordan said, smiling. "He thinks no one admires his talents. He talks about it all the time, how he never gets any respect. I'd like to see him get it (the MVP) so he could quit being so hard on himself." "I haven't campaigned for it and I'm not going to," Jordan said.




Miami Herald - April 15, 1990

The only thing tougher than deciding who's most deserving of NBA awards is defining exactly what each award truly means. Let me get this straight: the MVP award goes to the best player, provided his team's a winner and he ranks high in a handful of statistical categories? Or is it really a popularity contest, reserved for those who play in Los Angeles, Chicago or New York?

MVP Award

Pick: Charles Barkley, Philadelphia

Runner-up: Michael Jordan, Chicago


The explanation: There's no sense trying to convince anyone that Barkley was better than Jordan - or Magic Johnson or Patrick Ewing, for that matter. And I dare anyone to knock down one to build up the other. No one can say "Jordan was good, but . . ." There's no but. Jordan was good, period. He's very deserving.

Barkley's the choice here for the simple reason he finally became the player the Sixers needed to win 50 games, much the way Wilt started passing the ball and took Philly all the way in 1967. Barkley became more of a team player and mature leader. And at the same time, he lifted his game to the level of the elite. Check the major categories, and Barkley's name is littered all over the place - scoring, shooting percentage, rebounding, etc.





Philadelphia Daily News - April 23, 1990

Rick Mahorn says he would vote for teammate Charles Barkley as the NBA's Most Valuable Player.

"But I don't feel he'll get it, 'cause I'm here," Mahorn said after the 76ers ended their regular season yesterday with a 118-98 loss to Boston.

"People seem to see a negative side to Charles, and there are people who don't like that in a player. Then they see me playing next to him, and they don't like me, either.

"If it were up to the players, he'd be one of the top five, and without him it would have been kind of rough for this team. People don't understand that the things he can do are unbelievable.

"People see Magic (Johnson), Michael (Jordan), Patrick (Ewing). There's media stuff on them everywhere, but there's not that much on Charles."





Philadelphia Daily News - May 23, 1990

Charles Barkley says his reputation came back to haunt him.

That is why he says he could draw the most first-place NBA Most Valuable Player ballots (38) from a 92-member media panel and still finish second behind Magic Johnson, of the Los Angeles Lakers.

"You get stereotyped, you develop a reputation," the 76ers' captain said yesterday before undergoing magnetic resonance imaging to clarify the problem he has been having with his right shoulder and arm.

"I think this year is even more special than the other two, because of the competition," Johnson said. "I was shocked to hear I had won it . . . This makes me feel a little better. I've been sad, frustrated, upset since we lost (to Phoenix in the Western Conference semifinals).

Third-place finisher Michael Jordan, on the other hand, remains alive with the Bulls in the Eastern Conference final against Detroit.

"I seriously thought that Charles would win it because of what I believe the credentials were - to make your team better and improve the situation within a team," Jordan said. "You look at what was expected of Philly and what they did and who was the main reason for that, and it all led to Charles Barkley."

So why didn't Barkley win?

"I'm seen as a controversial guy, I'll be a controversial guy the rest of my career," Barkley said. "So in a situation like this, if a voter likes you, he'll pick you No. 1. But if a voter doesn't like your personality and doesn't want to put you No. 1, he might not put you No. 2, either. He'll put you lower."

Barkley might not buy this, but he's more likely to be viewed as a media darling by the majority of the balloters, who were making their choices strictly on the strength of regular-season performance.

[The JKidd Kid]

I disagree, I think that defense as a whole is undervalued by fans.

[Aussie Dunker]

This is why I rank Hakeem very, very high.

10/10 offense combined with 10/10 defense....

How many players can you say that for?

Jordan - but who else?

[Carbine]

People prefer Garnett over Barkley because Garnett can give you great offense as well as being one of the best defenders EVER, not just his era.

Barkley gives you more explosive and better offense, but he's not anywhere near Garnett on the other side of the ball.

With Garnett, you have a #1 option (or 1B option) and one of the best anchors on defense ever. I think lots of people would prefer that over what Barkley brings to the table (more offensive firepower)

[Orlando Magic]

Lol at all the 15 year olds being exposed in this thread. Holy ****ing shit there's a lot of you.

[KyrieTheFuture]

How can you possibly say defense is overrated? Defense is the most underrated part of basketball. If one player X is barely better at offense and way worse at defense than player Y then Player Y is the better player. Defense is ****ing important.

[Young X]

^Ben Wallace is a great defender, not a good offensive player
Steve Nash is a great offensive player, not a good defender

Who is the better player?

[imdaman99]

I agree fully. But it seems that excellence in offense is always negated by the other player is a better defender
Take the thread Barkley vs. Garnett. The main argument for taking Garnett is he's a better defender. To me this belittles Barkley's offensive dominace
DUDE, barkley is the reason john paxson was SOOOOO open at the end of game 6. he was dominant on offense, but his defense was not even respectable. that being said, he was still a great player. its a tough one, i might still take him over KG though.

[LAZERUSS]

^Ben Wallace is a great defender, not a good offensive player
Steve Nash is a great offensive player, not a good defender

Who is the better player?

Wallace had more team success.

It really depends on the fit. Wallace certainly couldn't carry a team offensively, nor could Nash dominate a game defensively.

Of course, many of the great players were exceptional at both offense and defense.

IMHO, though, the average player can score 20 ppg in a season if he gets the shots. The average player does not defend nearly as well. That doesn't mean a team of Rodman's is going to beat a team of Dantley's, but I really think it is easier to build around defensive players, than the other way around.

[Marchesk]

Individual offense>>Individual defense - ESPECIALLY when talking about guards. If defense and offense were equal then Ben Wallace would be better than Steve Nash.

I'd rather build around Wallace than Nash.

[Marchesk]

^Ben Wallace is a great defender, not a good offensive player
Steve Nash is a great offensive player, not a good defender

Who is the better player?

Kind of depends, but Nash needs the right system to shine, while Ben's rebounding and defense would help any team.

[Young X]

^Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 pts in a season, can any defender in the history of the NBA have the defensive equivalent of a 50 pt season? Is ONE defender capable of stopping a team from scoring 81 pts by himself? Think about it.

[Marchesk]

^Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 pts in a season, can any defender in the history of the NBA impact wise have the defensive equivalent of a 50 pt season?

How do you quantify Russell's defensive impact for the Celtics? What Wilt did was amazing, even adjusted for pace, but can you tell me whether his offensive contribution had a greater impact on wins?


Can any ONE defender stop a team from scoring 81 pts by himself? Think about it.

A great rim protecter and post defender can shut down the paint, and force the other team to shoot jumpers. But yeah, 81 points is hard to account for on the defensive end. If you put a goat perimeter defender on Kobe that night, how many does he score?

[Young X]

^That's the point tho, Great individual offense beats great individual defense any day. Defense is more of a team thing, while one player can pretty much dominate a game on offense by himself.

A player always has the ability to score no matter how tough the defense is, if a player gets REALLY hot from 3, how do you stop that with one player? You can't, the offensive player always has the advantage.

Just think, if defense and offense were equal wouldn't Gary Payton be better than Magic Johnson?

[Carbine]

I think most people would choose Nash, because at the end of the day offense is more important than defense. Rightfully so....it's probably weighted somewhere in the 65-35 range when evaluating a player in favor of offense, IMO.

Charles was a dominant offensive player, probably gets at least a 95/100, while Garnett is probably closer to the 85-90 range/100.....however Barkley is so far below Garnett on defense that it makes up the difference from Charles advantage on offense and then some in most peoples eyes in favor of Garnett.

[Aussie Dunker]

^Ben Wallace is a great defender, not a good offensive player
Steve Nash is a great offensive player, not a good defender

Who is the better player?


In my opinion this question isn't valid because to me, it is far more important for a C to be good at defense, at far more important for a PG to be good on offense. It ias hard to scale a defensive C against an offensive PG.

If you were to ask me would I rather say prime Ben Wallace or prime Brook Lopez at C, it would be a no brainer.

Same as if you would ask me would I rather a prime Steve Nash running PG or a prime Mo Cheeks / Dennis Johnson... No brainer...

Ofcourse, you would prefer to have the option of great two way players - which is why players like Duncan, KG and even players like Brand, Sheed don't get enough props in my opinion...

At the end of the day, I think the importance of defense relies marginally on two things,

a) The scheme your team is running,

b) Somewhat the position you are playing, even though defense is very important over all positions, I think it is a necessity to have a defensive front court, more so than a defensive back court...

[KyrieTheFuture]

I think the fact that great defensive players are available at cheaper contracts (usually) helps me choose them over offensive players. I would never ever want JR Smith, Kevin Martin, Nick Young or any one of those types of guys on my team.

[Carbine]

In my opinion this question isn't valid because to me, it is far more important for a C to be good at defense, at far more important for a PG to be good on offense. It ias hard to scale a defensive C against an offensive PG.

If you were to ask me would I rather say prime Ben Wallace or prime Brook Lopez at C, it would be a no brainer.

Same as if you would ask me would I rather a prime Steve Nash running PG or a prime Mo Cheeks / Dennis Johnson... No brainer...

Ofcourse, you would prefer to have the option of great two way players - which is why players like Duncan, KG and even players like Brand, Sheed don't get enough props in my opinion...

At the end of the day, I think the importance of defense relies marginally on two things,

a) The scheme your team is running,

b) Somewhat the position you are playing, even though defense is very important over all positions, I think it is a necessity to have a defensive front court, more so than a defensive back court...

^ Very true

[Young X]

In my opinion this question isn't valid because to me, it is far more important for a C to be good at defense, at far more important for a PG to be good on offense. It ias hard to scale a defensive C against an offensive PG.
I actually agree with this, so lets use PG's only instead:

Tony Parker is a very good offensive player, not a good defender

Avery Bradley is a great defender, not a good offensive player

Who's better?

[Aussie Dunker]

I actually agree with this, so lets use PG's only instead:

Tony Parker is a very good offensive player, not a good defender

Avery Bradley is a great defender, not a good offensive player

Who's better?

Again not the most valid question as one player is arguably top 10 and the other might be top 100.. But I get the idea of what you are asking:

From my post before, to me, it is more beneficial in today's league to have a more offensive skewed PG rather than a defensive skewed PG - so you go with Parker.

Another example of two players who are fairly similar in status in the NBA.

Lopez or Noah?

Noah may not be the better player, but I take Noah purely because defense is very important to me at the C position -

[Pointguard]

People prefer Garnett over Barkley because Garnett can give you great offense as well as being one of the best defenders EVER, not just his era.

Barkley gives you more explosive and better offense, but he's not anywhere near Garnett on the other side of the ball.

With Garnett, you have a #1 option (or 1B option) and one of the best anchors on defense ever. I think lots of people would prefer that over what Barkley brings to the table (more offensive firepower)

Good Post.

KG is among one of the best team defensive players ever - definitely among the most sophisticated and smartest. As for the offense/defense comparison Barkley had strong support of very good offensive player to compliment his offensive game quite a few times in his career. If KG had very good defensive players, like Barkley had good offensive players in his career, it wouldn't be much of an argument. KG would be so far ahead it wouldn't be be up for discussion.

And KG offensive style blended in perfectly when he had offensive players. Barkley more often than not offensively clashed when he had good offensive players. And if KG had very good offensive support its very possible he could have averaged what Barkley did for a 8 year prime. Barkley was explosive but he wasn't consistent. KG was the most intense player and consistent player for years.

[97 bulls]

How bout Scottie Pippens defensive Job on John Stockton and the Utah Jazz. The Bulls won 96-54. Which is the largest margin of victory in an NBA finals. Thanks to Pippens defense. I remember reading that Pippen in some way accounted for 20 of the Jazz 26 TOs. His +/- was +42. He drew charges, steals, blocked a shot, played help, played great man D, rebounded, he was everywhere. It was so bad that Jerry Sloan sent tapes to the league accusing Pippen of illegal defense.*


Id like to get youre opinion on this response to you young X

[Carbine]

Just to throw it out there, what about Mutombo vs. Barkely.

Both pretty similarly dominant on one side, Charles on offense and Mutombo on defense. Mutomber is probably a better offensive player than Barkley a defensive player.

This is where the weighting system comes into play, the 65/35 ratio I was talking about earlier which would put Charles clearly ahead.

[iamgine]

I actually agree with this, so lets use PG's only instead:

Tony Parker is a very good offensive player, not a good defender

Avery Bradley is a great defender, not a good offensive player

Who's better?
The PG position's defensive impact isn't much and can be covered by team defense.

[Aussie Dunker]

The PG position's defensive impact isn't much and can be covered by team defense.

Exactly right mate

[Carbine]

The PG position probably deserves its own formula, more in the 75/25 favoring offense....maybe as high as 80/20

PG - 75/25 or 80/20

Wing - 65/35 or 70/30

PF's - 60/40 or 65/35

Centers - 50/50

[Aussie Dunker]

The PG position probably deserves its own formula, more in the 75/25 favoring offense....maybe as high as 80/20

PG - 75/25 or 80/20

Wing - 65/35 or 70/30

PF's - 60/40 or 65/35

Centers - 50/50

Your system is good in theory, even though there are some exceptions,

The weighting looks about right, except in my opinion, I would have the C at about 35/65 in favor of D,

But I think we can all agree that having a two way player is far more beneficial right :cheers:

[97 bulls]

I actually agree with this, so lets use PG's only instead:

Tony Parker is a very good offensive player, not a good defender

Avery Bradley is a great defender, not a good offensive player

Who's better?
Bad comparison. Avery Bradley isba great MAN defender. Parker has evolved into a scorer capable of attacking the basket as well as hitting a midrange jumper. And he can pass.

A better comoarison for Parker would be Rajon Rondo

[PHILA]

Mutombo vs. Barkely.

I think Barkley is comparable to Shaq as an offensive player, minus the FT%. Even though Shaq draws fouls at a higher rate, he is not as efficient as Barkley as a finisher (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=296225) around the basket. In looking at their skill level, I would say he is on par with or better than Shaq at almost everything offensively, but Shaq is 7 feet and plays center which makes him a much higher impact player on defense. I'm not going to badmouth Garnett or anyone else, as others have done to Barkley. I never thought I would see anyone say he "lacked intensity" or that he was the "Iverson of Power forwards". A guy who was too intense for his own good at times lacked intensity? That's unbelievable. For all the celebration a guy like Rodman got with his histrionics as a rebounding specialist, he had nothing on Barkley as a rebounder.



Chicago Tribune - Feb 8, 1997

Also offering his opinion of Rodman was Wilt Chamberlain, the greatest rebounder and No. 2 scorer in NBA history. Chamberlain and Magic Johnson are among several Hall of Famers who believe the presence of too many "specialists"--players who only shoot or rebound or defend is one reason why scoring is down and the game is slower. Rodman, Chamberlain said, "is a big rebounder. He does it better than anyone else out there. But I am amazed (at) guys who tend not to want to understand that playing the complete game is what the game should be about. "I remember Elgin Baylor scoring 45 and 71 points against us beating us and getting 18 rebounds. I'm not impressed with Dennis' 17 rebound average. He's not an all-around player. Why I like a guy like Charles Barkley so much is he gives his team whatever it needs at that time."

[Young X]

Id like to get youre opinion on this response to you young X
That's great, Pippen is the best perimeter defender I've ever seen, and those Bulls teams were the GOAT teams, but this just proves my point, Defense is 100% team effort - everybody has to do their part. Pippen didn't hold the Jazz to 54 points by himself, the Bulls as a team held the Jazz to 54 points. Pippen definitely played the biggest role, but if Jordan, Harper, Kukoc and Longley were playing terrible defensively would that be possible?

Also, how many times does 54 pts by a team in a single game happen? Almost never. But how many times do we see 40-50 pt games?

[Young X]

Bad comparison. Avery Bradley isba great MAN defender. Parker has evolved into a scorer capable of attacking the basket as well as hitting a midrange jumper. And he can pass.

A better comoarison for Parker would be Rajon Rondo
Can one player have the defensive equivalent of a 35 pt season? Can one player stop teams from scoring 35 points per game for a whole season by himself?

[iamgine]

Just to throw it out there, what about Mutombo vs. Barkely.

Both pretty similarly dominant on one side, Charles on offense and Mutombo on defense. Mutomber is probably a better offensive player than Barkley a defensive player.

This is where the weighting system comes into play, the 65/35 ratio I was talking about earlier which would put Charles clearly ahead.
Hmm wouldn't this depend on what kind of scorer Mutombo can get in his team vs what kind of defensive presence Barkley can get?

It's too bad Mutombo played during the era of so many great centers, really overlooking his value. If we just look at Mutombo vs Barkley, we automatically pick Barkley but in reality it's not as simple as that.

[imdaman99]

offense will get you paid, defense will help you fit in any system.

[PHILA]

Shaq draws fouls at a higher rate

It seems I was mistaken. 6'5 Charles Barkley actually drew fouls at a higher rate than Shaq. He had as high a motor as I have ever seen. Too many posters must be thinking of the old broken down Barkley after 1994.



FTA/FGA Ratio

Barkley

1988: 0.741
1989: 0.661
1990: 0.632
1991: 0.563


Shaq

1998: 0.593
1999: 0.562
2000: 0.494
2001: 0.684

[97 bulls]

That's great, Pippen is the best perimeter defender I've ever seen, and those Bulls teams were the GOAT teams, but this just proves my point, Defense is %100 team effort - everybody has to do their part. Pippen didn't hold the Jazz to 54 points by himself, the Bulls as a team held the Jazz to 54 points. Pippen definitely played the biggest role, but if Jordan, Harper, Kukoc and Longley were playing terrible defensively would that be possible?

Well, the same thing can be said about offense. Even a player like Shaq would struggle if he were surrounded by bad shooters.

[Marchesk]

For all the celebration a guy like Rodman got with his histrionics as a rebounding specialist, he had nothing on Barkley as a rebounder.

Doesn't matter if Rodman was a specialist, he has the best rebounding numbers of the modern era.




Chicago Tribune - Feb 8, 1997

Also offering his opinion of Rodman was Wilt Chamberlain, the greatest rebounder and No. 2 scorer in NBA history. Chamberlain and Magic Johnson are among several Hall of Famers who believe the presence of too many "specialists"--players who only shoot or rebound or defend is one reason why scoring is down and the game is slower. Rodman, Chamberlain said, "is a big rebounder. He does it better than anyone else out there. But I am amazed (at) guys who tend not to want to understand that playing the complete game is what the game should be about. "I remember Elgin Baylor scoring 45 and 71 points against us beating us and getting 18 rebounds. I'm not impressed with Dennis' 17 rebound average. He's not an all-around player. Why I like a guy like Charles Barkley so much is he gives his team whatever it needs at that time."

I take everything Wilt said with a big grain of salt. Seems that dude couldn't stand the thought of someone being better than him in any way.

And who cares if Rodman didn't do everything? What he did worked extremely well for the Pistons and Bulls to the tune of five championships. And yes, Rodman did play an important role. You think Jordan gets that second three-peat without Rodman's defensive and rebounding specialization? Hell no.

[97 bulls]

Can one player have the defensive equivalent of a 35 pt season? Can one player stop teams from scoring 35 points per game for a whole season by himself?
You cant measure defense like this. Or offense. A player avg 35 can only do it with the help of his team.

[97 bulls]

I take everything Wilt said with a big grain of salt. Seems that dude couldn't stand the thought of someone being better than him in any way.*And who cares if Rodman didn't do everything? What he did worked extremely well for the Pistons and Bulls to the tune of five championships. And yes, Rodman did play an important role. You think Jordan gets that second three-peat without Rodman's defensive and rebounding specialization? Hell no.


Great post. Wilt never had much to say about anyone being compared to him. Ill never forget the look on his face when Glen Rice broke one if his all-star game records.

[Marchesk]

Great post. Wilt never had much to say about anyone being compared to him. Ill never forget the look on his face when Glen Rice broke one if his all-star game records.

I don't get it. You'd think he achieved enough in his career to prove his worth as an all-time great to himself. The only blemish is not having more rings. But it seems Wilt was more obsessed with future players having comparable individual stats, or being called better. Why would he need to feel that way?

Why do some of these old-timers get bitter like that? You accomplish what you can in your era, and go down in the history books. Then you retire and let the future generations do their thing. Seems really silly.

[I<3NBA]

if you were to choose between 2 equally skilled offensive players, defense is your tie breaker. you really don't want a liability on defense.

[PHILA]

Doesn't matter if Rodman was a specialist, he has the best rebounding numbers of the modern era.

But could Charles Barkley have equal or better numbers in his prime if he was asked to focus just on that? Who knows, it's an irrelevant question anyways but it shows the flaw in those who are blindly assuming Barkley's offensive contribution could be so easily replaced. Do they also think Shaq could be easily replaced in terms of offense only? Putting pressure on the defense counts for something. In 1990, Rick Mahorn was able to cover up for Barkley quite a bit on the interior. Remember Charles was typically guarding the small forwards on defense.



Dallas Morning News - Mar 1, 1990

Philadelphia's interior defense has improved dramatically, and Mahorn's presence has allowed Barkley to guard the small forward. "Charles has become more of a leader each year I've been here,' said Lynam, who has been in Philadelphia for the last three years. "He's putting more of a conscious effort into being involved at the defensive end of the court on a consistent basis. He's more involved with the other players during the game. "We need an involved, active Charles. That has a positive effect." Barkley says he likes this Sixers team. He joins Mahorn and Gminski to give them one of the most physical front lines around. Hawkins and Johnny Dawkins, obtained from San Antonio for veteran Maurice Cheeks in the off-season, complement each other in the backcourt.



defense

Not that I think defense is less important than offense, I am one who ranks Bill Russell right next to Jordan as the greatest primarily due to his defensive game. Based on the available (limited) video footage (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=302158), he was 7% in shot blocking percentage and roughly 36% in defensive rebounding percentage. To be that dominant in either one of those areas is something, but to be that dominant in both? Especially considering shot blocking tends to take you out of proper rebounding position? That is why he is the greatest. Below are the single season leaders for block percentage and defensive rebounding percentage. To think Russell would be near or at the top on both of these lists is amazing.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_pct_career.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/drb_pct_career.html


He was basically rebounding like Dennis Rodman and blocking shots like Hakeem/Robinson. You talk about a guy who not only doesn't have a defensive weakness, but is so dominant at virtually every area on that side, that is Bill Russell. I do however believe Nate Thurmond was a better 1 on 1 low post defensive man, though that is a completely different discussion.

[Marchesk]

So who's prime do you take, Scottie Pippen or Carmelo Anthony?

If we say the difference between Anthony's offensive game is matched by the difference with Pippen's defensive prowess, and they play the same position, then offense wins right?

But I'm taking Pippen any day.

[Smoke117]

Mourning was a good offensive player, so I dunno why you have him with guys like Mutombo and Artest. He was a 20+pt player his entire career up until the kidney ailment. His efficiency was also fantastic and he should have won the MVP in 99, not Karl Malone. He was the 2nd best player in the league after Shaq in 2000.

[97 bulls]

But could Charles Barkley have equal or better numbers in his prime if he was asked to focus just on that? Who knows, it's an irrelevant question anyways but it shows the flaw in those who are blindly assuming Barkley's offensive contribution could be so easily replaced
He was asked to focus on rebounding in 97 with the Rockets. Ive always believed Barkley was the bizzaro Rodman. Both great rebounders, but Rodman dominated on defense Barkley on offense.

[Marchesk]

he was 7% in shot blocking percentage and roughly 36% in defensive rebounding percentage.

36% is just sick. I wonder what Wilt's was.

I will agree that Russell was the better team player until later in Wilt's career. Maybe it was just the perfect situation for Russell, and Wilt was in a situation that encouraged him to stat pad.

And the interesting thing is that Wilt's teams were at their best when he was more focused on rebounding, passing and defense.

[tpols]

Well, the same thing can be said about offense. Even a player like Shaq would struggle if he were surrounded by bad shooters.
Plenty of games out there where one star player has put the team on his back while his teammates struggled offensively.


Has there ever been a single defensive player to carry an elite defense while all of his teammates played subpar D?? It's not really possible. Teams will always go for the weak point or soft spot. If only one guy is making a great effort it will be negated by attacking his teammates.

[97 bulls]

So who's prime do you take, Scottie Pippen or Carmelo Anthony?

If we say the difference between Anthony's offensive game is matched by the difference with Pippen's defensive prowess, and they play the same position, then offense wins right?

But I'm taking Pippen any day.
Pippen allday everyday. I feel Melo is on the same line as Rodman

[PHILA]

If we say the difference between Anthony's offensive game is matched by the difference with Pippen's defensive prowess, and they play the same position, then offense wins right?
What are you even arguing? I already said both ends of the floor matter a great deal in the previous post. If anything Bill Russell in the 60's showed the defense has a higher ceiling than the offense.



So who's prime do you take, Scottie Pippen or Carmelo Anthony?

Pippen is also a better playmaker and finisher at the basket. In looking at his 1996-97 shot chart he has no shooting weaknesses (below league average) inside of the 3 point arc.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=937&Season=1996-97&zone-mode=zone

I don't know how Melo ended up in this thread. Then again I can recall posters here in the past who said they would take Melo over Barkley as well. Perhaps some posters here agree.

[Marchesk]

What are you even arguing? I already said both ends of the floor matter a great deal in the previous post. If anything Bill Russell in the 60's showed the defense has a higher ceiling than the offense.

I wasn't arguing with you, it was with other posters who are stating that offense is a lot more important, with the possible exception of the center position.


I don't know how Melo ended up in this thread. Then again I can recall posters here in the past who said they would take Melo over Barkley as well. Perhaps some posters here agree.

Melo came to mind as a guy I could compare with a great defensive player at his position who was good but not great at offense.

[PHILA]

I wasn't arguing with you, it was with other posters who are stating that offense is a lot more important, with the possible exception of the center position.

In this era, it's pick and roll defense with the way the rules have changed. The point guards now rule the game offensively, but they can't impact the game on defense to that extent now with the rule changes. Even Pippen said he wouldn't be the same defensive player under these rules, though that was 2006.


http://web.archive.org/web/20060206113928/http://www.nba.com/blog/blog30.html



"The way I played Magic Johnson in the '91 Finals, I would have fouled out the first time down court."


"If I'm guarding Kobe Bryant in today's game, I couldn't be the defender I was known as."

[97 bulls]

Plenty of games out there where one star player has put the team on his back while his teammates struggled offensively.


Has there ever been a single defensive player to carry an elite defense while all of his teammates played subpar D?? It's not really possible. Teams will always go for the weak point or soft spot. If only one guy is making a great effort it will be negated by attacking his teammates.
But teams cant just leave players in an effort to stop one guy. They get doubled or tripled, but the opposition cant totally negate the other four to stop one guy

[LAZERUSS]

I don't get it. You'd think he achieved enough in his career to prove his worth as an all-time great to himself. The only blemish is not having more rings. But it seems Wilt was more obsessed with future players having comparable individual stats, or being called better. Why would he need to feel that way?

Why do some of these old-timers get bitter like that? You accomplish what you can in your era, and go down in the history books. Then you retire and let the future generations do their thing. Seems really silly.

Wilt also had to endure the "ESPN Generation" basically ignoring his statistical accomplishments. This was well past his death, but a couple of years ago Kevin Durant went on a 25+ point consecutive game streak. As the streak continued, ESPN began tracking it, and comparing it with MJ's "record" of something like 40 straight. Of course, they didn't mention that Chamberlain had a streak of 126 straight.

Chamberlain's domination of the NBA Record Book is considered a joke by many. And usually their only argument is "pace." BUT, they never explain why it was ONLY Wilt who was just putting the records so far out of reach. I won't take the time to post them now (but I have before), but if you compare 30-30, 40-30, 50-30, 60-20, 60-30, 50-40, 60-40, and even 70-40 games in NBA history...it is truly laughable. Wilt is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the rest of the entire NBA, and it's history...COMBINED. In some of those cases, he is the ONLY one.

And then there are the "Wilt-bashers" who have called him a "selfish" "stats-padding" "choker", and yet they can't provide any real evidence to support it. For instance, how often have you read that Wilt was "stats-padding" in his 50 point season? Yet, the fact was, it was NOT Chamberlain's idea to shoot 40 times per game. It was his COACH's. And why? Because his COACH took one look at the pathetic cast of clowns that surrounded Wilt, and decided the only hope that that team had, was for Wilt to shoot and score. Just the season before, and in the first round of the playoffs, the Warriors were swept by the Syracuse Nats. While Wilt averaged 37 ppg in that series, his two HOF teammates, Arizin and Gola, shot .328 and .206 from the field respectively. McGuire knew that the rest of the '62 roster was a last-place collection of talent, and put everything on Wilt's shoulders. BTW, in that '62 season, Chamberlain shot .506 from the floor, while his teammates collectively shot .402. And it would get worse in the post-season. Chamberlain shot .467, and his teammates collectively shot .354. And yet, somehow Wilt got that inept roster past the first round of the playoffs, and to a game seven, two-point loss, against the HOF-laden Celtics.

I can fully understand why Wilt was somewhat bitter later in his life (although he was nowhere near as bitter as Russell was/is, and even Kareem has been.)

[Harison]

Most fans dont care about defense, they care about offense, and primarily about scoring.

Those fans dont understand:

1. Defense is half of the game.

2. Teams with dominant defense wins championships, while purely offensive teams almost never. Even Showtime Lakers were very good defensively.

3. There are BY FAR more elite scorers than elite defenders, therefore elite anchors are way more valuable.

4. Offensive players always have off nights, while defense can always be there. Thats why defensive teams usually prevail in 7 game series if both teams are equal talent wise, just with different offense/defense focus.

Bottom line, defense is not "sexy enough" for most of the fans, therefore they dont value it. Even though as NBA history shows, the saying defense wins championships is based on hard facts.

[BoutPractice]

It's probably not the main argument when comparing individual superstars, because what ultimately matters is the defensive performance of the team as a whole and your superstar does not need to be the best defender on your team or even a great defender if he makes up for it with his offense.

(The exception would be if he's a center and does not have a rim protector alongside him. It's almost impossible for a defensively inept center to be valuable to his team, because almost nothing can make up for giving up easy shots near the basket.)

[Lebron23]

Defense wins championship. Just ask the Nash's Phoenix Suns. They were a great offensive team, but a terrible defensive team.

In comparing individual players two play players >>> One dimensional scorers. That's why I pick Pippen over the Hill and the Carmelo Anthony's.

[Marchesk]

I can fully understand why Wilt was somewhat bitter later in his life (although he was nowhere near as bitter as Russell was/is, and even Kareem has been.)

I don't care why any of the old timers are bitter. It doesn't come off well. And the way Wilt has always seemed to me is as someone with this massive ego defect whereby he needs this super validation. He needed to be larger than life. Or that's the way it seemed to me.

Really, if you're a GOAT candidate - someone who holds that many records - why do you act threatened if someone breaks one of your records or some later generation fails to mention you? Don't you think Wilt did enough to prove to himself that he was great? He shouldn't have needed any more validation.

[HurricaneKid]

I cannot believe ISH. Defense is what wins Championships. Period.

[kshutts1]

Can one player have the defensive equivalent of a 35 pt season? Can one player stop teams from scoring 35 points per game for a whole season by himself?

I'm referencing this one post, but really, I'm trying to respond to all of your "can X defender ever have an impact as great as Y offensive performance" posts.

Elmore Smith -- 17 blocks. That's 34 points right there. How many other quality shots did the O not take because of how in-the-zone Smith was? I think we can assume at least a couple. Now we're up to 38-42 points that Smith directly saved. Rebounding is considered part of defense. How many defensive rebounds did Smith have, when he was the only member of the Jazz near the hoop, thus saving a likely offensive put-back? We'll say 1-3. So now we're up around 40-48 pts that Smith directly saved. Now let's discuss potential M2M D. How many times did Smith D up his man so well that he was forced to pass out of quality low post position? Probably a couple... The numbers keep adding up.

By the way... I am 95% sure you (Young X) don't even know who Elmore Smith is. Which means he's not an all-time great. So use the above "formula" with all-time great defenders... Pippen, Jordan, Payton, Artest, Russell, Chamberlain, Hakeem, Kareem, Wallace, Rodman, Debusschere (sp?), Moncrief, et al.

Defensive impact is not as tangible as scoring, hence the under-rating of it. However, defense is nearly as important as offense, and in some positions/instances it is more so.

To make my post even longer... Let's say an all-time great scorer, with very little help, goes up against a team with an all-time great defender at the same position. I'm particularly thinking about a theoretical matchup of '06 Kobe vs '06 Artest. I realize there were probably real matchups, but I"m too lazy to look them up. Anyway, I would assume that Kobe may still "get his", but at what efficiency cost?

Furthermore, if a team, like the '06 Lakers, rely so heavily on one person to score and create, what happens to that team's offense when their one player (Kobe) plays against a defender that can somewhat limit his impact WITHOUT double teams? Suddenly those kick-out shooters are not open. Men don't flash open under the basket. Offensive rebounds become more scarce because no defensive player needs to leave their man.

You may call that "team defense". I call it the team being able to play defense because of superb man defense.

[Carbine]

Pippen vs. Anthony is pretty easy to me.

Pippen has an argument as the best perimeter defender ever. He was also very good on offense with his combination of play-making and scoring ability.

Melo is a great scorer only on offense - his play-making is lacking. His defense is decent when he tries, and bad when he doesn't. He's not consistently decent, and not consistently bad. In between.

Basically,

Using the 65/35 theory:

Pippen = 35/35 on defense, 55/65 on offense = 90/100

Melo = 20/35 on defense, 60/65 on offense = 80/100

[LAZERUSS]

I don't care why any of the old timers are bitter. It doesn't come off well. And the way Wilt has always seemed to me is as someone with this massive ego defect whereby he needs this super validation. He needed to be larger than life. Or that's the way it seemed to me.

Really, if you're a GOAT candidate - someone who holds that many records - why do you act threatened if someone breaks one of your records or some later generation fails to mention you? Don't you think Wilt did enough to prove to himself that he was great? He shouldn't have needed any more validation.

Well, Wilt wasn't/isn't the only one with ego issues. Russell, KAJ, Oscar, Bird, MJ, Kobe, and now Lebron. All with huge egos.

And look at Eric Dickerson, or the members of the '72 Dolphins. I don't think anyone really wants to see their records broken.

[kshutts1]

Pippen vs. Anthony is pretty easy to me.

Pippen has an argument as the best perimeter defender ever. He was also very good on offense with his combination of play-making and scoring ability.

Melo is a great scorer only on offense - his play-making is lacking. His defense is decent when he tries, and bad when he doesn't. He's not consistently decent, and not consistently bad. In between.

Basically,

Using the 65/35 theory:

Pippen = 35/35 on defense, 55/65 on offense = 90/100

Melo = 20/35 on defense, 60/65 on offense = 80/100

Minor technicality, but your description does not match the numerical rating. I'd put the D rating down around 10-15/35 based upon your description. "Decent" and "bad" do not equate to "above average" in my book.

[BoutPractice]

Defense does win championships, but not every single player on the team needs to be a superb defensive player for that team to have great defense.

It's all a function of context. First of all, there are differences in position. For instance, most PGs can get by one another, individually, so 1 on 1 PG defense doesn't matter that much. Secondly, a defensive specialist can help cover up another player's deficiencies in a way that having both on the court is beneficial to the team as a whole (think Dirk + Tyson Chandler). Thirdly, there's occasionally a player who's not a big offensive threat on the other side you can stick your relatively poor defender on. For instance, if you're a defensively challenged PF, you can have him cover Kendrick Perkins, Joel Anthony, Tiago Splitter... or if you're a guard, Tony Allen, Thabo Sefolosha, etc. Finally, at the individual level, you observe diminishing returns of sorts on defense: terrible defense brings about terrible results and screws up the entire team effort, but once you avoid the most obvious egregious mistakes, you don't have to be a magnificent defender to justify your place on the roster.

[Carbine]

I'd say Melo is a slightly above average defender overall, which is why I gave him a 20. He also brings lineup versatility because of his ability to play PF in todays league, which is a bonus.

[ZenMaster]

^That's the point tho, Great individual offense beats great individual defense any day. Defense is more of a team thing, while one player can pretty much dominate a game on offense by himself.

A player always has the ability to score no matter how tough the defense is, if a player gets REALLY hot from 3, how do you stop that with one player? You can't, the offensive player always has the advantage.

Just think, if defense and offense were equal wouldn't Gary Payton be better than Magic Johnson?

Getting open for three pointers is also a team thing, getting screens, having your teammates do the right spacing while making the right cuts.

Allen Iverson scored a lot of points, but his teammates worked really hard to get him open, and setting good screens is playing good offense. Iverson didn't just dribble down and go 1on1 or shoot a 3 by himself.

[Clifton]

In a league where traveling and carrying are allowed and hand-checking is not, and where standing stock still 3 feet from he basket is a shooting foul if someone runs into you, defense is simply not equal to offense.

If the NBA were a league where basketball as I know it were played, defense would be just as important, as it is in high school and college ball. But you have to play NBA-ball in the NBA, and that means you need guys who can put their heads down and go right through people to get a whistle. Far outweighs "defense." The only time a guy gets shut down is when they allow themselves to be by being lazy and settling for jumpers (Melo) when you can get to the rim at will, especially if you use screens and off-ball movement.

[Marchesk]

Well, Wilt wasn't/isn't the only one with ego issues. Russell, KAJ, Oscar, Bird, MJ, Kobe, and now Lebron. All with huge egos.

And look at Eric Dickerson, or the members of the '72 Dolphins. I don't think anyone really wants to see their records broken.

True. Maybe it goes with the territory of being untra-competitive. And I loved watching Dickerson growing up. Somewhat underrated among the all-time great running backs. Nobody was more productive than him his first seven seasons.

[Marchesk]

In a league where traveling and carrying are allowed and hand-checking is not, and where standing stock still 3 feet from he basket is a shooting foul if someone runs into you, defense is simply not equal to offense.

If the NBA were a league where basketball as I know it were played, defense would be just as important, as it is in high school and college ball. But you have to play NBA-ball in the NBA, and that means you need guys who can put their heads down and go right through people to get a whistle. Far outweighs "defense." The only time a guy gets shut down is when they allow themselves to be by being lazy and settling for jumpers (Melo) when you can get to the rim at will, especially if you use screens and off-ball movement.

This. You learn to live with all the traveling and carrying, although sometimes it's so blatant. And then the refs will call it every so often, and you're like, why now after all the ones you didn't call?

But the one that just grinds my gears is letting the offensive player put their head down like a fullback and plow into the defender, or throw themselves at a guy playing good defense, and most of the time, the offensive player gets the call. I hate that. I hate it when players pump fake, get a guy off his feet, and then jump into him. Wade is great at that. I feel like the game has been bastardized somewhat.

And then there's the flopping. Don't recall it being that big of a deal in the 80s and 90s, although I'm sure players have always tried to sell calls. It just has gotten to soccer levels of silliness in the last five years or so. Guys are professional actors out there now. It's unbelievably absurd to see a guy like Lebron flop. I know that like any pro athlete, he takes any advantage he can get. But I hate that aspect of the game.

Obligatory, "Get Off My Lawn!"

[fpliii]

This trend is pretty frustrating. I suppose if we're talking about individual offense (ISO scoring) vs individual defense (man-to-man either in the post or on the outside), then perhaps there's a case that one is more valuable than the other. Team offensive and defensive play are by nature equally important though, as when you're on offense, your opponent is defending (and vice versa). Playmakers and defensive anchors are extremely valuable (as are willing passers/screen setters/guys playing off the ball and help defenders in general), and equally so. I don't think there's much value in discussing flat 35ppg scorers, or their hypothetical defensive counterparts since neither is being viewed in a team context

Yes, effort is key in playing good defense but to trivialize that side of the ball saying anybody can be a standout? That's going too far, and disrespectful to the great defenders we've seen in league history. Defensive talent is very real. Comparing Nash to Wallace or Deke to Barkley is up to you guys, but I do think there a couple of possibilities:

1) you're relying on popular perception too much; nobody is forcing you to take one over the other

2) they're not necessarily of equal quality in the pairings (they may or may not be, but this isn't set in stone); even if Nash/Big Ben are the Xth best offensive/defensive players and Barkley/Mutombo are the Yth best respectively, they might not be of equal quality (that is to say, the 1st best player on offense/defense all-time might not be equal to each other, and so on)

Your evaluation is entirely up to you obviously, but it's a good idea to keep some of this in mind.

[feyki]

No , there's no limit on both ends . Court is Open-end way for players .

[AirBonner]

Good defense can lead to good offense

[ArbitraryWater]

Yes, Individual offense >>> Individual defense... otherwise Payton would be > Magic.

[greatest-ever]

I agree fully. But it seems that excellence in offense is always negated by the other player is a better defender
Take the thread Barkley vs. Garnett. The main argument for taking Garnett is he's a better defender. To me this belittles Barkley's offensive dominace
Or it recogizes that Kg was a pretty good offensive player in his own right and an elite rebounder. The argument would be that Kg's defensive advantage is bigger and more relevant than Barkley's offensive advantage. You're comparing a top 10 defender to an average one. That's a big deal.

[Prime_Shaq]

Depends on the player you stan.

[feyki]

Yes, Individual offense >>> Individual defense... otherwise Payton would be > Magic.

How ? :facepalm

[ArbitraryWater]

How ? :facepalm

Educate yourself :cheers:

[feyki]

Educate yourself :cheers:

:whatever: