Defense vs. Offense

[QUOTE=catch24]How does my question imply that? First of all, Hakeem [I]was[/I] 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)?[/QUOTE]


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?

[QUOTE=catch24]How does my question imply that? First of all, Hakeem [I]was[/I] 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)?[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=tpols]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=tpols]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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?[/QUOTE]

So as a GM, you'd take Nash's offense over Hakeem's defense when building a team. Correct?

[QUOTE=catch24]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.[/QUOTE]


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.

[QUOTE=catch24]So as a GM, you'd take Nash's offense over Hakeem's defense when building a team. Correct?[/QUOTE]

hakeem without offense is more like mutombo or ben so who would you take, mutombo or nash?

[QUOTE=catch24]So as a GM, you'd take Nash's offense over Hakeem's defense when building a team. Correct?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=knicksman]hakeem without offense is more like mutombo or ben so who would you take, mutombo or nash?[/QUOTE]

i was just posting this. exactly.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]You can't list hakeem like he's some defensive specialist. i[/quote]

Did you watch Hakeem play? He's easily among the top 10 as an individual defender. He was a specialist on both sides.

[quote]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.[/quote]

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.

[quote]give me nash. he'd be the more valuable player in my opinion[/quote]

Totally disagree, but hey..you answered it.

[QUOTE=knicksman]hakeem without offense is more like mutombo or ben so who would you take, mutombo or nash?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=catch24]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.[/QUOTE]


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.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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. .[/quote]

Had to rib ya' there. You know why I asked that question. :lol

[quote]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.[/quote]

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

[quote]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.[/quote]

I wouldn't take his defense over Kareem, Magic, Shaq, Jordan, or Bird's offense. Those are my top 5 offensive players.

[quote]where do you rank hakeem defensively all time?[/quote]

I don't have a definitive list, but it's easily anywhere from 5-7 all-time.


[quote]specialist[/QUOTE]

I view the term differently. Something you're elite at. Not singularly, but overall; different qualities you excel in.

[QUOTE=catch24]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.