Defense vs. Offense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]but that is the point. even with Howard's far superior defense/rebounding...its still debatable on who the better player is right now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=GoldNugg21]I think it's pretty evident that on an individual level, you take the offensive player. Just look at a top 50 NBA player list, and tell me how many of those guys were known for their defense. Russell obviously, but he had the luxury of being surrounded by excellent offensive players throughout his career, and was exceptional on that end himself. Rodman, but he's pretty far down the list in comparison to players like Barkley and Malone.

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

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

This is pretty much exactly how I feel.

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

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

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

[QUOTE=TheFan]

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

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

[QUOTE=GoldNugg21]I think it's pretty evident that on an individual level, you take the offensive player. Just look at a top 50 NBA player list, and tell me how many of those guys were known for their defense. Russell obviously, but he had the luxury of being surrounded by excellent offensive players throughout his career, and was exceptional on that end himself. Rodman, but he's pretty far down the list in comparison to players like Barkley and Malone.

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

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

[QUOTE=Jacks3]Offense. You can build a good defense if you have players willing to put in the effort, a coach who stresses it consistently, and a sound scheme. Even if you have don't have particularly great defenders.

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]but that is the point. even with Howard's far superior defense/rebounding...its still debatable on who the better player is right now.

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

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

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

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

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

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