Printable View
[QUOTE=Young X]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?[/QUOTE]
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
[quote]Mutombo vs. Barkely. [/quote]
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 [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=296225"]finisher[/URL] 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 [I]"lacked intensity"[/I] or that he was the [I]"Iverson of Power forwards"[/I]. 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.
[I]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]
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Id like to get youre opinion on this response to you young X[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=97 bulls]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[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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.
offense will get you paid, defense will help you fit in any system.
[quote] Shaq draws fouls at a higher rate[/quote]
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.
[B]FTA/FGA[/B] [B]Ratio[/B]
[B]Barkley[/B]
[B]1988:[/B] 0.741
[B]1989:[/B] 0.661
[B]1990:[/B] 0.632
[B]1991:[/B] 0.563
[B]Shaq[/B]
[B]1998:[/B] 0.593
[B]1999:[/B] 0.562
[B]2000:[/B] 0.494
[B]2001:[/B] 0.684
[QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]
Well, the same thing can be said about offense. Even a player like Shaq would struggle if he were surrounded by bad shooters.
[QUOTE=PHILA]For all the celebration a guy like Rodman got with his histrionics as a rebounding specialist, he had nothing on Barkley as a rebounder.[/quote]
Doesn't matter if Rodman was a specialist, he has the best rebounding numbers of the modern era.
[QUOTE=PHILA]
[I]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][/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Young X]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?[/QUOTE]
You cant measure defense like this. Or offense. A player avg 35 can only do it with the help of his team.
[QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[quote]Doesn't matter if Rodman was a specialist, he has the best rebounding numbers of the modern era.[/quote]
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.
[I]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.[/I]
[quote]defense[/quote]
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) [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=302158"]video footage[/URL], 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 [B]both?[/B] 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.
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_pct_career.html[/url]
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/drb_pct_career.html[/url]
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.
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.
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.
[QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=PHILA]he was 7% in shot blocking percentage and roughly 36% in defensive rebounding percentage.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Well, the same thing can be said about offense. Even a player like Shaq would struggle if he were surrounded by bad shooters.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
Pippen allday everyday. I feel Melo is on the same line as Rodman
[quote]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?[/quote]
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.
[quote]So who's prime do you take, Scottie Pippen or Carmelo Anthony?[/quote]
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.
[URL="http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=937&Season=1996-97&zone-mode=zone"]http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=937&Season=1996-97&zone-mode=zone[/URL]
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.
[QUOTE=PHILA]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=PHILA]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.[/quote]
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.
[quote=Marchesk]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.[/quote]
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.
[URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20060206113928/http://www.nba.com/blog/blog30.html"]http://web.archive.org/web/20060206113928/http://www.nba.com/blog/blog30.html[/URL]
[I]"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."[/I]
[QUOTE=tpols]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.[/QUOTE]
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
[QUOTE=Marchesk]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.[/QUOTE]
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.)
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.
[B]Bottom line[/B], defense is not "sexy enough" for most of the fans, therefore they dont value it. Even though as NBA history shows, the saying [I]defense wins championships[/I] is based on hard facts.
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.)
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.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]
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.)[/QUOTE]
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.
I cannot believe ISH. Defense is what wins Championships. Period.
[QUOTE=Young X]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?[/QUOTE]
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.
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
[QUOTE=Marchesk]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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. [B]His defense is decent when he tries, and bad when he doesn't.[/B] 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
[B]Melo = 20/35 on defense[/B], 60/65 on offense = 80/100[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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.
[QUOTE=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?[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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!"