Defense vs. Offense

The main difference as I see it is that your not gonna find very many players top players that weren't effective on both sides of the ball in some way. What you want me to find you dmavs, is a defensive specialists that's in the consensus top 50. Which is just as rare as me asking you to find me an offensive specialts in the top 50. I have a feeling rodman will be in the top 75. And even though I wouldn't even call him a defensive specialist, like a bobby jones or bruce bowen, I guess you could use him.

But I've already given you what my definition of an offensive player/ defensive player. Or I should say specialist is. Bruce bowen is a defensive specialist. Jason terry is an offensive specialist

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]For the last time...I'm not going by any ranking. I'm going by who I think was the better player.

If I had to pick a pg for my team. I'd almost always take Nash over Payton. Just my opinion though. My point is that I can admit its debatable....as should anyone that actually watched them both play. If it is debatable, I don't see how individual defense is more important. Payton is one of the best pg defenders ever....Nash is one of the worst. That is just a fact.

So how could it be debatable given that? And also given that Payton was a damn good offensive player....much beter offensively than Nash was defensively.

Do you think its crazy to say Nash vs Payton as basketball player...forget rankings....is debatable?[/QUOTE]
No because nash runs a team better. But you keep saying players are regarded as better, where, who, or what are you basing it on? Cuz when you say "regarded" I'm assuming you're referring to what the consensus is.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]The main difference as I see it is that your not gonna find very many players top players that weren't effective on both sides of the ball in some way. What you want me to find you dmavs, is a defensive specialists that's in the consensus top 50. Which is just as rare as me asking you to find me an offensive specialts in the top 50. I have a feeling rodman will be in the top 75. And even though I wouldn't even call him a defensive specialist, like a bobby jones or bruce bowen, I guess you could use him.

But I've already given you what my definition of an offensive player/ defensive player. Or I should say specialist is. Bruce bowen is a defensive specialist. Jason terry is an offensive specialist[/QUOTE]

But Jason Terry can't consistently take over late in games...nor can he consistently even score points night in night out. And its that being able to perform in crunch time that is so valuable in this hypothetical.

I'm not asking for defensive specialists at all. The players you have listed are hardly solely defensive players. In fact, the players you have listed are better two way players than almost all the players I've listed.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]No I'm not. I'm not saying that Dirk/Barkley are better than Robinson because of winning. In fact, Barkley never won anything. I'm going off which players I thought were better.

Its not crazy to think that bird/magic/shaq were just better basketball players than Hakeem. Its not crazy to think Dr. J was about as good as KG. Its not crazy to think Thomas was as good or better than Pippen...and on and on.

Has nothing to do with all time rank for me.

I would have taken Dirk over Howard in 09...had nothing to do with winning. Howard made the Finals and Dirk lost in the 2nd round. I'm not doing that at all. I'm just giving you my opinion on these players. And again, the very fact that they are at least debatable pretty much proves my side.[/QUOTE]
How does it being debateable prove your side? I've already explaineed that basketball is a team sport. The smart teams get guys that can make up the definciencies of their stars. You seem to act as if basketball is played 1v1.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]No because nash runs a team better. But you keep saying players are regarded as better, where, who, or what are you basing it on? Cuz when you say "regarded" I'm assuming you're referring to what the consensus is.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. I'm just saying "regarded" as just common opinion here or with people that know basketball.

Nash vs Payton is perfect for this. It gives you exactly what you need. Nash is solely an offensive player. Just the truth. He's a negative defensively...not even average. Payton is one of the best pg defenders ever....and also great offensively.

Not talking about MVP or all time ranking. Just debating as to who the better basketball player was.....I think Nash was ever so slightly better. I'd rather have Nash on my team. At the very least I think we are in agreement that its debatable. And we've reached that conclusion on a lot of players like Barkley/Dirk vs Howard/Robinson/KG....Magic/Bird vs. Hakeem. Thomas vs Pippen...etc.

So my question is simple. If defense is more important, then how come these mainly offensive players are as good as or better than elite defensive players that also play good to great offense? Logically it doesn't work.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]But Jason Terry can't consistently take over late in games...nor can he consistently even score points night in night out. And its that being able to perform in crunch time that is so valuable in this hypothetical.

I'm not asking for defensive specialists at all. The players you have listed are hardly solely defensive players. In fact, the players you have listed are better two way players than almost all the players I've listed.[/QUOTE]
But again, as tpols said. There really is no such thing as a one dimensional all-time great. Other than magic and russell. And you threw that out. I named rodman. I'm sure wallace will be in the hall.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]How does it being debateable prove your side? I've already explaineed that basketball is a team sport. The smart teams get guys that can make up the definciencies of their stars. You seem to act as if basketball is played 1v1.[/QUOTE]

This is an individual thread. Basketball is absolutely a team sport and it takes a team to win.

But we absolutely can compare players to players in terms of their impact.

It proves my side because I'm giving you a bunch of examples of strictly offensive players being as valuable or more valuable than all time great defensive players that also played great offense.

So if individual defense was truly more important as you claim, then the defensive guys should be winning these comparisons each time.

Here is another way to look at it. The gap between Nash and Payton on offense is huge. As big as it could get. If Payton is a 10 on defense....Nash is a 0 or 1. The gap between their offense is not nearly as big as the gap between their defense. Not even close.

So if defense really matters more...then why isn't Payton easily a better basketball player than Nash?

Do you understand that?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]But again, as tpols said. There really is no such thing as a one dimensional all-time great. Other than magic and russell. And you threw that out. I named rodman. I'm sure wallace will be in the hall.[/QUOTE]

How one dimensional? I consider Barkley pretty one dimensional....he's definitely an all time great. Same with Dirk. definitely an all time great.

You can't have it only your way. You can't list off guys like Hakeem and Pippen and Payton and Howard and Robinson as your examples....and expect me to solely counter with guys that didn't play any defense...even though I actually kind of did. Your guys all played good to great offense....so some of my examples deserve to have played a little defense. Regardless though:

Nash over Payton
Barkley over Robinson
Dirk over Howard
Bird over Hakeem
Thomas over Pippen
Barkley over Mourning
Dirk over Ewing
Dr. J over KG

My guys all play less defense than your guys play offense....and at the very least, every single one of those comparisons above is debatable.....the truth is that the offensive guys are just better than the defensive guys as a whole on that list above.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Not at all. I'm just saying "regarded" as just common opinion here or with people that know basketball.

Nash vs Payton is perfect for this. It gives you exactly what you need. Nash is solely an offensive player. Just the truth. He's a negative defensively...not even average. Payton is one of the best pg defenders ever....and also great offensively.

Not talking about MVP or all time ranking. Just debating as to who the better basketball player was.....I think Nash was ever so slightly better. I'd rather have Nash on my team. At the very least I think we are in agreement that its debatable. And we've reached that conclusion on a lot of players like Barkley/Dirk vs Howard/Robinson/KG....Magic/Bird vs. Hakeem. Thomas vs Pippen...etc.

So my question is simple. If defense is more important, then how come these mainly offensive players are as good as or better than elite defensive players that also play good to great offense? Logically it doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
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=97 bulls]But again, as tpols said. There really is no such thing as a one dimensional all-time great. Other than magic and russell. And you threw that out. I named rodman. I'm sure wallace will be in the hall.[/QUOTE]

You named Rodman.

Don't you think then a fair comparison would be Dirk or Barkley vs Rodman. Rodman was a great defensive player....one of the best ever.

Would you take Rodman over Dirk or Barkley?

Edit:

And you are accusing me of using "all time rankings" over ability? The only player you have really named that fits your assertion at all is Russell. Is there another player in NBA history that gained more on his reputation/ranking than Russell due to team accomplishments and how people rank? LOL

[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)?

[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.