Defense vs. Offense

[QUOTE=SCdac]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.[/QUOTE]


true. good points. but that is kind of a different discussion because the hypothetical was about a player that could carry the offense in crunch time which implies elite offensive players.

also, some of the guys you mention are some of the best defensive players of their time. Bruce Bowen for example was an elite perimeter defender....probably what? top 3 of his era? crawford isn't even in the top 30 offensive players probably. I think there needs to some type of balance in how these comparisons are made.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Yes. I'd still take nash in almost any scenario given hakeem was just a one sided player.[/quote]

You have to take into account the rules changes and incredibly high pace Nash's teams played. I'm not really sure why you would still take him. His playmaking was great in Dallas, but was it award-worthy like Hakeem's defense? At 30, Nash went from barely making third-string all-nba teams to becoming an MVP candidate. Hmm, what?

[quote]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.[/quote]

He'd be an even better defender and rebounder, that's for sure. I don't know though. A wild guess and I'd say anywhere from 30-40. But again...you take away a large portion off anyone's ability and they're significantly worse.

[quote]Would you take him over Dirk? Barkley? Nash? Barry? Thomas? Mullin? Melo? Amare?...you get the idea.[/QUOTE]

I would take him over Nash, Barry, Mullin, Melo and Amare. Barkley and Dirk though? No. They're both regarded as the cr

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]true. good points. but that is kind of a different discussion because the hypothetical was about a player that could carry the offense in crunch time which implies elite offensive players.

also, some of the guys you mention are some of the best defensive players of their time. Bruce Bowen for example was an elite perimeter defender....probably what? top 5 of his era? crawford isn't even in the top 30 offensive players probably. I think there needs to some type of balance in how these comparisons are made.[/QUOTE]

But the fact that Jamal Crawford can be such a good offensive player (all things considered)... and still not really be regarded as anything special, to me only emphasizes the fact that offense [I]can[/I] be overrated if you try hard enough, and can not always indicate which player is more valuable (with defense being so hard to measure).

Also, GM's do value defense... let's not forget that... as evidence, when the Houston Rockets traded a #8 pick, Rudy Gay, for Shane Battier in an attempt to make the team more of a contender. That's almost like a "offense for defense" swap.

what about prime Ben Gordon vs. prime Bruce Bowen? Is that a better comparison? .... I think I'd honestly still take Bowen.... *knowing what I know about both (which is easy to do in hindsight).

DMAVS, who would you draft rookie Dwight Howard (who's offense was pretty mediocre) or rookie Andrea Bargnani? ... Personally, I'd take Howard. What he would provide to the particular model I think is successful in basketball (a defense oriented team) is better, IMO, even if Bargnani's shot/release/touch/offensive skills are better.

[QUOTE=SCdac]But the fact that Jamal Crawford can be such a good offensive player (all things considered)... and still not really be regarded as anything special, to me only emphasizes the fact that offense [I]can[/I] be overrated if you try hard enough, and can not always indicate which player is more valuable (with defense being so hard to measure).

Also, GM's do value defense... let's not forget that... as evidence, when the Houston Rockets traded a #8 pick, Rudy Gay, for Shane Battier in an attempt to make the team more of a contender. That's almost like a "offense for defense" swap.

what about prime Ben Gordon vs. prime Bruce Bowen? Is that a better comparison? .... I think I'd honestly still take Bowen.... *knowing what I know about both (which is easy to do in hindsight).

DMAVS, who would you draft rookie Dwight Howard (who's offense was pretty mediocre) or rookie Andrea Bargnani? ... Personally, I'd take Howard. What he would provide to the particular model I think is successful in basketball (a defense oriented team) is better, IMO, even if Bargnani's shot/release/touch/offensive skills are better.[/QUOTE]

Drafting? I'd take Howard for sure. That is an altogether different question. And a good one, but just not one that is directly related to this conversation.

I'd have different opinions comparing generic offensive players to good to great defenders. In the hypothetical...it implied elite offensive players vs elite defensive players.

Having said that though, I think there needs to be better balance with your comparisons. I consider Bruce Bowen to probably be a top 5 or so small forward defender ever....so I don't think its fair to compare him to the likes of kevin martin, crawford, or gordon....although i'm not sure that bowen is significantly more valuable than any of those guys...but i don't really want to debate that because that is not what this is about.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Drafting? I'd take Howard for sure. That is an altogether different question. And a good one, but just not one that is directly related to this conversation.[/QUOTE]

How is it not directly related to the question? It's basically exactly what the question is. "who would you build with?" ... that's exactly what a draft is.

None the less... Bargs and Howard are both the obvious best picks in this hypothetical draft... yet, you'd take Howard? but why? Isn't Bargs offense more important? He can shoot from anywhere on the floor.

[QUOTE=catch24]You have to take into account the rules changes and incredibly high pace Nash's teams played. I'm not really sure why you would still take him. His playmaking was great in Dallas, but was it award-worthy like Hakeem's defense? At 30, Nash went from barely making third-string all-nba teams to becoming an MVP candidate. Hmm, what?



He'd be an even better defender and rebounder, that's for sure. I don't know though. A wild guess and I'd say anywhere from 30-40. But again...you take away a large portion off anyone's ability and they're significantly worse.



I would take him over Nash, Barry, Mullin, Melo and Amare. Barkley and Dirk though? No. They're both regarded as the cr

[QUOTE=SCdac]How is it not directly related to the question? It's basically exactly what the question is. "who would you build with?" ... that's exactly what a draft is.

None the less... Bargs and Howard are both the obvious best picks in this hypothetical draft... yet, you'd take Howard? but why? Isn't Bargs offense more important? He can shoot from anywhere on the floor.[/QUOTE]


well, you can't draft a player that right off the bat comes out and can consistently carry you offensively and is also great in crunch time.

if you could? give me that guy over the defensive specialist every single time.

so I'd rather build around the offensive player.

drafting isn't a great example because there is too much unknown. this is about known qualities.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]So doesn't that make offense generally more important individually. You rank hakeem in the top 7 all time on defense. And I think its pretty clear that a guy like Barkley or Dirk would easily be better than him if Hakeem had the offensive equivalent of what those two guys did defensively.[/quote]

Better offense>>>better defense. I never claimed otherwise. The objective of the game is to outscore your opponent. All I've been really arguing is that it's not a forgone conclusion. Hakeem is one of those exceptions.

[QUOTE=catch24]Better offense>>>better defense. I never claimed otherwise. The objective of the game is to outscore your opponent. All I've been really arguing is that it's not a forgon conclusion. Hakeem is one of those exceptions.[/QUOTE]

Of course there are exceptions...totally agree.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]well, you can't draft a player that right off the bat comes out and can consistently carry you offensively and is also great in crunch time.

if you could? give me that guy over the defensive specialist every single time.

so I'd rather build around the offensive player.[/QUOTE]

So now, you'd choose Bargnani after all?

Why did you say "of course Howard"

We're not talking about finished products... I'm asking, if you had to build with a rookie Bargnani or rookie Howard... which one?

[QUOTE=SCdac]So now, you'd choose Bargnani after all?

Why did you say "of course Howard"

We're not talking about finished products... I'm asking, if you had to build with a rookie Bargnani or rookie Howard... which one?[/QUOTE]

what are you talking about? those are unknown players in the draft. I'd take Howard because of what he could turn into.

The OP was about building around known players in which you knew what you were getting. I'd take Howard for the exact reason for what happened. Its easier to see Howard having more success than Bargs.

You are completely changing the debate. Which is fine...I think its a good change of tune...and I agree with what you are saying. Its safter to draft the atheltic freak that you know can defend and rebound. But that has almost nothing to do with this debate we've been having.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Of course there are exceptions...totally agree.[/QUOTE]

And that's all I've been really saying. There are so many factors you gotta consider when debating a topic like this (team structure, offensive/defensive-system, impact, level of play, etc). Its just not as simple as saying, [I]individual offense over defense[/I]. Perspective is key in these type of discussions.

[QUOTE=catch24]And that's all I've been really saying. There are so many factors you gotta consider when debating a topic like this (team structure, offensive/defensive-system, impact, level of play, etc). Its just not as simple as saying, [I]individual offense over defense[/I]. Perspective is key in these type of discussions.[/QUOTE]

true, but on the whole individual offense does trump individual defense...you just said so.

take the 10 best defenders ever and give them 0 offense.....vs the 10 best offensive players and give them 0 defense.

you are taking the 10 offensive players on the whole because what they offer simply has more value.

thats the point. and that is exactly what this thread has been about.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]true, but on the whole individual offense does trump individual defense...you just said so.[/quote]

Right. Just seemed as an outsider looking in some of the earlier posts were of the belief that it couldn't even be argued.

[quote]take the 10 best defenders ever and give them 0 offense.....vs the 10 best offensive players and give them 0 defense.

you are taking the 10 offensive players on the whole because what they offer simply has more value.

thats the point. and that is exactly what this thread has been about.[/QUOTE]

Alright, cool. I thought we were just generally speaking. My fault.

[QUOTE=catch24]Right. Just seemed as an outsider looking in some of the earlier posts were of the belief that it couldn't even be argued.



Alright, cool. I thought we were just generally speaking. My fault.[/QUOTE]

of course it can be argued and their are exceptions. i was generally speaking about offense vs defense at the elite levels proposed in the hypothetical.

Let me ask a question.... who is the better coach don nelson and mike dantoni or larry brown and greg popovich?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]of course it can be argued and their are exceptions. i was generally speaking about offense vs defense at the elite levels proposed in the hypothetical.[/QUOTE]

For sure.

So, getting back to '97 bulls' illustration of Magic/Pippen, all things being the same, why would you take Magic? I know why I'd take MJ, but not sure I got to see your point of view..or really understood it correctly. I'm genuinely interested. Thanks in advance.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Let me ask a question.... who is the better coach don nelson and mike dantoni or larry brown and greg popovich?[/QUOTE]

Really depends on the situation, but the choice is an obvious one, due to success:

Larry Brown and Gregg Popovich.

Better question, who's better for offense vs defense:

Rick Adelman or Rick Carlisle ?

Closer battle...

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Better question, who's better for offense vs defense:

Rick Adelman or Rick Carlisle ?

Closer battle...[/QUOTE]
I gotta go with carlisle. He's donne a relatively good job where ever he's gone. But I think its close. I used brown/pop vs dantoni/nelson because they have contrasting philosophies. Nelson and dantoni have the approach that they're gonna outscore their opposiition, while brown and pop stress defense.

[QUOTE=catch24]For sure.

So, getting back to '97 bulls' illustration of Magic/Pippen, all things being the same, why would you take Magic? I know why I'd take MJ, but not sure I got to see your point of view..or really understood it correctly. I'm genuinely interested. Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]

Simply put, I think Magic was just a far superior player. I know that isn't what you want to hear, but I'm tired and don't want to write out in depth why I feel Magic was better.

I've never seen a player make the other players better to the extent magic did.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Let me ask a question.... who is the better coach don nelson and mike dantoni or larry brown and greg popovich?[/QUOTE]
This even further proves that elite individual offense beats elite individual defense by showing that team defense is more valuable than team offense[which is why the defensive coaches are better.. they orchestrate the team defense].

[QUOTE=tpols]This even further proves that elite individual offense beats elite individual defense by showing that team defense is more valuable than team offense[which is why the defensive coaches are better.. they orchestrate the team defense].[/QUOTE]

bingo.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Really depends on the situation, but the choice is an obvious one, due to success:

Larry Brown and Gregg Popovich.[/QUOTE]

defensive teams are more likely going to win in their first year than offensive teams but offensive teams are more consistent in winning more games every year. and gregg really is a good offensive coach. There are lots of defensive coaches that failed too like jvg. In fact the best defensive team chicago,miami lost to a lesser defensive team but better offensively. You still need both when it comes to coaches.

[QUOTE=knicksman]defensive teams are more likely going to win in their first year than offensive teams but offensive teams are more consistent in winning more games every year. and gregg really is a good offensive coach. There are lots of defensive coaches that failed too like jvg. In fact the best defensive team chicago,miami lost to a lesser defensive team but better offensively. You still need both when it comes to coaches.[/QUOTE]

Well that's right. You need balance on both sides, really.

That's why Phil Jackson has 11 rings and Red Auerbach has 9 rings on their resume. They had a great influence on both sides of the floor.

Also, they had players that were great at their roles for both sides and for one side of the court as well.

Balance is the key. Although, that's not exactly the premise of this thread, per se.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Well that's right. You need balance on both sides, really.

That's why Phil Jackson has 11 rings and Red Auerbach has 9 rings on their resume. They had a great influence on both sides of the floor.

Also, they had players that were great at their roles for both sides and for one side of the court as well.

Balance is the key. Although, that's not exactly the premise of this thread, per se.[/QUOTE]

yah but i think if i have to chose between offense and defense, I would still go with offense IMO. I think those suns could be better if they only had a center like chandler. Those 2010 suns team were pretty good and I think they could have done better if they have a better center than an injured lopez. Too bad they have a cheap owner.