Defense vs. Offense

[QUOTE=97 bulls]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Another good example T-Mac vs Artest in the the mide 00s....I think 03 and 04 are probably good years.[/quote]

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.

[QUOTE=catch24]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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.[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=catch24]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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.[/QUOTE]

For certain players, yes. Would you say Nash's offensive impact had more value than Hakeem's defensive impact?

[QUOTE=catch24]For certain players, yes. Would you say Nash's offensive impact had more value than Hakeem's defensive impact?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Close. [B]If you told me that Hakeem's offense and Nash's defense were equal[/B]. 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.[/quote]

Why would I make that claim? You know that isn't true. Not even close really.

[quote]Nash is hardly a top 10 offensive player ever. At least I don't think he is.[/QUOTE]

Right, but you didn't put a caveat above. You just got finished saying, [I]its obvious at this point that individual offense trumps individual defense on the whole....[/I]

:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=catch24]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, [I]its obvious at this point that individual offense trumps individual defense on the whole....[/I]

:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Wait. What?[/quote]

You said this:

[quote]If you told me that Hakeem's offense and Nash's defense were equal. It would be close for me.[/quote]

Again, why I would [I]tell[/I] you that?

[quote]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.[/quote]

Alright.

[quote]So for that hypothetical to work you have ignore the other sides.[/quote]

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.

[QUOTE=catch24]You said this:



Again, why I would [I]tell[/I] 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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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.[/quote]

How does my question imply that? First of all, Hakeem [I]was[/I] an elite offensive player.

[quote]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.[/QUOTE]

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)?