Is defense an overrated argument?

I'm not saying playing defense is overrated but I often see that player X is better than player Y due to player X was a better defender. What I also think is a great offensive player sometimes negates the lack of defense.

Here's a list of players who are argued to be "average" defenders whom I've seen this used against:

Magic
Shaq
Nash
Barkley
Webber

Granted some of those names never had much team success but here is a list of players who were great defenders who were "average" offensive players

Mutombo
Mourning
Robertson
Artest

That is on the flip side but if defense was a primary argument then why aren't these players ranked higher to most?

Thoughts

Individual offense>>Individual defense - ESPECIALLY when talking about guards. If defense and offense were equal then Ben Wallace would be better than Steve Nash.

[QUOTE=Young X][B]Individual offense>>Individual defense - ESPECIALLY when talking about guards[/B]. If defense and offense were equal then Ben Wallace would be better than Steve Nash.[/QUOTE]

I agree fully. But it seems that excellence in offense is always negated by the other player is a better defender
Take the thread Barkley vs. Garnett. The main argument for taking Garnett is he's a better defender. To me this belittles Barkley's offensive dominace

Everybody can play defense. The difference between an elite defender and an average defender isn't as big.

Are we talking bout 1v1 Defense or Rim protector Defense?

I think that in the game of basketball X-player can torch Y-player at any given day.

Meaning that some players have off days and then some days they just can't miss no matter how good you play them.

On this site and generally in the public's eye people glorify offense more than Defense.

And most of the time when someone on here is saying x-player is better than y-player cause lack of Defense that person is trying to big up their fav player or have some kinda agenda or hate towards x-player.

In some cases Offense is greater than Defense.

Most coaches would sacrifice Defense for Offense.

On the whole, defense doesn't seem to matter unless it helps to further the agenda. Most people think defense < offense as far as individual players are concerned, and usually only invoke defense if that player is the better offensive player to begin with. Rarely will you ever see anyone say "Player [i]X[/i] was a better defender than Player [i]Y[/i], so Player [i]X[/i] is better," if Player [i]Y[/i] was the better offensive player. In that case, what you'll see is, "Player [i]Y[/i] > Player [i]X[/i] offensively more than Player [i]X[/i] > Player [i]Y[/i] defensively, and individual offense > individual defense."

[QUOTE=hateraid]I agree fully. But it seems that excellence in offense is always negated by the other player is a better defender
Take the thread Barkley vs. Garnett. The main argument for taking Garnett is he's a better defender. To me this belittles Barkley's offensive dominace[/QUOTE]

We all agree individual defense is overrated But KG was an excellent defense anchor.

[QUOTE=hateraid]I agree fully. But it seems that excellence in offense is always negated by the other player is a better defender
Take the thread Barkley vs. Garnett. The main argument for taking Garnett is he's a better defender. To me this belittles Barkley's offensive dominace[/QUOTE]
Yup, this might sound dumb, but look at Kobe's 81 point game, can any defender in NBA history come close to having the equivalent of an 81 point game on defense - impact wise?

[QUOTE=SyRyanYang]We all agree individual defense is overrated But KG was an excellent defense anchor.[/QUOTE]

I agree. But to take him over a player who had a clear advantage in offense for that reason seems a little overrated in my eyes. I would choose the offensive force over the defensive anchor 10 out of 10 times

[QUOTE=SyRyanYang]Everybody can play defense.[/QUOTE]

Yet this isn't borne out on the court during actual games, in actuality. I explicitly remember it being said of Amare Stoudemire, for instance, that he didn't have the ability to read and react to what offenses were doing at the NBA level.

I think the offense vs defense is used fairly. You cant totally dismiss the defensive side of the ball. Ive seen coaches bench players due lack of defense.

[QUOTE=hateraid]
Take the thread Barkley vs. Garnett. The main argument for taking Garnett is he's a better defender. To me this belittles Barkley's offensive dominace[/QUOTE]


You obviously have to be good as a team on both sides of the floor to win a title. To me, Barkley's scoring output can be more easily replaced/compensated for than can Garnetts defense. Not to say anyone could be Sir Charles, but generally there have been more guys who can pour in points than guys who can play Garnett level D, plus I think teams in general can collectively compensate for not having a high scorer easier than they can protect the rim like KG. Then you add in the fact that KG was more capable as an offensive player than Barkley was as a defender, and thats why you have a lot of people choosing KG.

[QUOTE=Young X]Yup, this might sound dumb, but look at Kobe's 81 point game, can any defender in NBA history come close to having the equivalent of an 81 point game on defense - impact wise?[/QUOTE]
How bout Scottie Pippens defensive Job on John Stockton and the Utah Jazz. The Bulls won 96-54. Which is the largest margin of victory in an NBA finals. Thanks to Pippens defense. I remember reading that Pippen in some way accounted for 20 of the Jazz 26 TOs. His +/- was +42. He drew charges, steals, blocked a shot, played help, played great man D, rebounded, he was everywhere. It was so bad that Jerry Sloan sent tapes to the league accusing Pippen of illegal defense.

I use this game because Pippen only scored 10 pts. But dominated the game

[quote]Barkley's scoring output[/quote]

He was also a great passer who was doubled basically every time he touched the ball. Jim Lynam's isolation offense in Philadelphia was based on Charles drawing the defense to get other teammates a free shot. He was also dominant on the offensive glass and in transition, though he could be a bit of a ball stopper at times on the perimeter. This mainly happened when the defense wasn't taking his bait and the shooters weren't hitting from the outside. In one year (1991), after their starting PG went down early, they had only one legitimate 3 pt. threat on the roster in Hersey Hawkins.

He was also robbed of the 1990 MVP. He had 11 more first place votes than Magic, and 17 more than Jordan. I'm sure the brawl at the end of the season may have had something do with it. To balance out all the first place votes he got, I believe some others left him completely off their ballot. Magic even said he was shocked to win it, and Jordan said he expected Barkley to win. Some of the writers were probably looking for an excuse not to give it to him, though it didn't help that him and a fan got involved on his way into the tunnel.

Others also believe Jordan deserved it. While I am not saying he was on par with Jordan, keep in mind Jordan had a better team around him than Barkley. In the end, the Sixers were better than the Bulls offensively, defensively, & in victory margin. They actually had the 5th best MOV in the NBA, 3rd in TOV%, & 4th in FT/FGA. Jordan was clearly the NBA's best player, but I also believe the Sixers may have at least been able to push the series to at least 6 games if Derek Smith was healthy. While Hersey played him tough, he had no chance at effectively stopping him. Plus in Game 4 the Bulls won in part due to Ed Nealy keeping Barkley off the offensive glass for several possessions. This shows me how valuable his rebounding was to their offense, in addition to him commanding a double team nearly every single time he touched the ball.

The main thing is depth on the roster. Outside of Ron Anderson in the playoffs (D. Smith injured) they had poor depth and the Bulls role players were utilized better by the triangle offense, whereas the Sixers primarily ran an isolation type offense based on Charles drawing a double team. Bulls had BJ, Paxson, & Hodges who could light it up from the outside. On the Sixers, Hersey Hawkins was the only main player who was a good 3 pt. shooter. Also Scott Brooks, though he played limited minutes.






[I][B]Philadelphia Daily News - April 23, 1990[/B]

Mahorn wondered if the brawl might cost Barkley some MVP ballots, even if the media panel's votes had to be in by yesterday, even if the majority of the panel probably had decided long before last Thursday.

"Some people file their taxes at the last minute," Mahorn said. "Maybe there are people voting at the last minute, too. You never know."[/I]



[I][B]Philadelphia Daily News - March 30, 1990[/B]

"Look at the candidates for MVP and the MVPs of the past," said Sixers swingman Derek Smith. "They've always had an all-star teammate or two. Without Charles, this basketball team is way down there."[/I]



[I][B]Philadelphia Daily News - April 09, 1990[/B]

"Charles Barkley may not have been named Player of the Week or Player of the Month," said Derek Smith, "but if he's not the MVP, they ought to abolish the award and never give it out again."[/I]



[I][B]Philadelphia Daily News - May 03, 1990[/B]

"What happens is, Charles gives you legitimacy just by going on the court," said Sixers general manager John Nash. "He goes out there with four other guys and you have a chance to win. But two years ago, we didn't have a complementary group that was nearly as productive.

"Some of our best games have come when he has not been the leading scorer, because even when he doesn't score, he rebounds. He always rebounds."

Said Barkley: "I can lift other guys. If that didn't work in the past, it was because there wasn't enough to lift. But I knew we had enough this year."

"He brings a spirit to me," Mahorn said. "He gets so emotional, if you're not emotional with him, he'll head-butt you, knock your head off. Sometimes you have to hold him back a little, pull in his reins, so he stays effective. But that's the way he is."[/I]




[I][B]St. Paul Pioneer Press - Apr 29, 1990[/B]

Jordan is on record as saying he would vote for Charles Barkley as the MVP this season. A worthy choice, given the way Barkley has elevated both his game and his team. But Jordan says that's not why he would pick him. "Barkley thinks he's an outcast," Jordan said, smiling. "He thinks no one admires his talents. He talks about it all the time, how he never gets any respect. I'd like to see him get it (the MVP) so he could quit being so hard on himself." "I haven't campaigned for it and I'm not going to," Jordan said.[/I]




[I][B]Miami Herald - April 15, 1990[/B]

The only thing tougher than deciding who's most deserving of NBA awards is defining exactly what each award truly means. Let me get this straight: the MVP award goes to the best player, provided his team's a winner and he ranks high in a handful of statistical categories? Or is it really a popularity contest, reserved for those who play in Los Angeles, Chicago or New York?

[B]MVP Award[/B]

Pick: Charles Barkley, Philadelphia

Runner-up: Michael Jordan, Chicago


[B]The explanation:[/B] There's no sense trying to convince anyone that Barkley was better than Jordan - or Magic Johnson or Patrick Ewing, for that matter. And I dare anyone to knock down one to build up the other. No one can say "Jordan was good, but . . ." There's no but. Jordan was good, period. He's very deserving.

Barkley's the choice here for the simple reason he finally became the player the Sixers needed to win 50 games, much the way Wilt started passing the ball and took Philly all the way in 1967. Barkley became more of a team player and mature leader. And at the same time, he lifted his game to the level of the elite. Check the major categories, and Barkley's name is littered all over the place - scoring, shooting percentage, rebounding, etc.[/I]





[I][B]Philadelphia Daily News - April 23, 1990[/B]

Rick Mahorn says he would vote for teammate Charles Barkley as the NBA's Most Valuable Player.

"But I don't feel he'll get it, 'cause I'm here," Mahorn said after the 76ers ended their regular season yesterday with a 118-98 loss to Boston.

"People seem to see a negative side to Charles, and there are people who don't like that in a player. Then they see me playing next to him, and they don't like me, either.

"If it were up to the players, he'd be one of the top five, and without him it would have been kind of rough for this team. People don't understand that the things he can do are unbelievable.

"People see Magic (Johnson), Michael (Jordan), Patrick (Ewing). There's media stuff on them everywhere, but there's not that much on Charles."





[/I][I][B]Philadelphia Daily News - May 23, 1990[/B]

Charles Barkley says his reputation came back to haunt him.

That is why he says he could draw the most first-place NBA Most Valuable Player ballots (38) from a 92-member media panel and still finish second behind Magic Johnson, of the Los Angeles Lakers.

"You get stereotyped, you develop a reputation," the 76ers' captain said yesterday before undergoing magnetic resonance imaging to clarify the problem he has been having with his right shoulder and arm.

"I think this year is even more special than the other two, because of the competition," Johnson said. "I was shocked to hear I had won it . . . This makes me feel a little better. I've been sad, frustrated, upset since we lost (to Phoenix in the Western Conference semifinals).

Third-place finisher Michael Jordan, on the other hand, remains alive with the Bulls in the Eastern Conference final against Detroit.

"I seriously thought that Charles would win it because of what I believe the credentials were - to make your team better and improve the situation within a team," Jordan said. "You look at what was expected of Philly and what they did and who was the main reason for that, and it all led to Charles Barkley."

So why didn't Barkley win?

"I'm seen as a controversial guy, I'll be a controversial guy the rest of my career," Barkley said. "So in a situation like this, if a voter likes you, he'll pick you No. 1. But if a voter doesn't like your personality and doesn't want to put you No. 1, he might not put you No. 2, either. He'll put you lower."

Barkley might not buy this, but he's more likely to be viewed as a media darling by the majority of the balloters, who were making their choices strictly on the strength of regular-season performance.[/I]

I disagree, I think that defense as a whole is undervalued by fans.

This is why I rank Hakeem very, very high.

10/10 offense combined with 10/10 defense....

How many players can you say that for?

Jordan - but who else?

People prefer Garnett over Barkley because Garnett can give you great offense as well as being one of the best defenders EVER, not just his era.

Barkley gives you more explosive and better offense, but he's not anywhere near Garnett on the other side of the ball.

With Garnett, you have a #1 option (or 1B option) and one of the best anchors on defense ever. I think lots of people would prefer that over what Barkley brings to the table (more offensive firepower)

Lol at all the 15 year olds being exposed in this thread. Holy ****ing shit there's a lot of you.

How can you possibly say defense is overrated? Defense is the most underrated part of basketball. If one player X is barely better at offense and way worse at defense than player Y then Player Y is the better player. Defense is ****ing important.

^Ben Wallace is a great defender, not a good offensive player
Steve Nash is a great offensive player, not a good defender

Who is the better player?

[QUOTE=hateraid]I agree fully. But it seems that excellence in offense is always negated by the other player is a better defender
Take the thread Barkley vs. Garnett. The main argument for taking Garnett is he's a better defender. To me this belittles Barkley's offensive dominace[/QUOTE]
DUDE, barkley is the reason john paxson was SOOOOO open at the end of game 6. he was dominant on offense, but his defense was not even respectable. that being said, he was still a great player. its a tough one, i might still take him over KG though.

[QUOTE=Young X]^Ben Wallace is a great defender, not a good offensive player
Steve Nash is a great offensive player, not a good defender

Who is the better player?[/QUOTE]

Wallace had more team success.

It really depends on the fit. Wallace certainly couldn't carry a team offensively, nor could Nash dominate a game defensively.

Of course, many of the great players were exceptional at both offense and defense.

IMHO, though, the average player can score 20 ppg in a season if he gets the shots. The average player does not defend nearly as well. That doesn't mean a team of Rodman's is going to beat a team of Dantley's, but I really think it is easier to build around defensive players, than the other way around.

[QUOTE=Young X]Individual offense>>Individual defense - ESPECIALLY when talking about guards. If defense and offense were equal then Ben Wallace would be better than Steve Nash.[/QUOTE]

I'd rather build around Wallace than Nash.

[QUOTE=Young X]^Ben Wallace is a great defender, not a good offensive player
Steve Nash is a great offensive player, not a good defender

Who is the better player?[/QUOTE]

Kind of depends, but Nash needs the right system to shine, while Ben's rebounding and defense would help any team.

^Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 pts in a season, can any defender in the history of the NBA have the defensive equivalent of a 50 pt season? Is ONE defender capable of stopping a team from scoring 81 pts by himself? Think about it.

[QUOTE=Young X]^Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 pts in a season, can any defender in the history of the NBA impact wise have the defensive equivalent of a 50 pt season? [/QUOTE]

How do you quantify Russell's defensive impact for the Celtics? What Wilt did was amazing, even adjusted for pace, but can you tell me whether his offensive contribution had a greater impact on wins?

[QUOTE=Young X]Can any ONE defender stop a team from scoring 81 pts by himself? Think about it.[/QUOTE]

A great rim protecter and post defender can shut down the paint, and force the other team to shoot jumpers. But yeah, 81 points is hard to account for on the defensive end. If you put a goat perimeter defender on Kobe that night, how many does he score?

^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?

I think most people would choose Nash, because at the end of the day offense is more important than defense. Rightfully so....it's probably weighted somewhere in the 65-35 range when evaluating a player in favor of offense, IMO.

Charles was a dominant offensive player, probably gets at least a 95/100, while Garnett is probably closer to the 85-90 range/100.....however Barkley is so far below Garnett on defense that it makes up the difference from Charles advantage on offense and then some in most peoples eyes in favor of Garnett.

[QUOTE=Young X]^Ben Wallace is a great defender, not a good offensive player
Steve Nash is a great offensive player, not a good defender

Who is the better player?[/QUOTE]


In my opinion this question isn't valid because to me, it is far more important for a C to be good at defense, at far more important for a PG to be good on offense. It ias hard to scale a defensive C against an offensive PG.

If you were to ask me would I rather say prime Ben Wallace or prime Brook Lopez at C, it would be a no brainer.

Same as if you would ask me would I rather a prime Steve Nash running PG or a prime Mo Cheeks / Dennis Johnson... No brainer...

Ofcourse, you would prefer to have the option of great two way players - which is why players like Duncan, KG and even players like Brand, Sheed don't get enough props in my opinion...

At the end of the day, I think the importance of defense relies marginally on two things,

a) The scheme your team is running,

b) Somewhat the position you are playing, even though defense is very important over all positions, I think it is a necessity to have a defensive front court, more so than a defensive back court...

I think the fact that great defensive players are available at cheaper contracts (usually) helps me choose them over offensive players. I would never ever want JR Smith, Kevin Martin, Nick Young or any one of those types of guys on my team.

[QUOTE=Aussie Dunker]In my opinion this question isn't valid because to me, it is far more important for a C to be good at defense, at far more important for a PG to be good on offense. It ias hard to scale a defensive C against an offensive PG.

If you were to ask me would I rather say prime Ben Wallace or prime Brook Lopez at C, it would be a no brainer.

Same as if you would ask me would I rather a prime Steve Nash running PG or a prime Mo Cheeks / Dennis Johnson... No brainer...

Ofcourse, you would prefer to have the option of great two way players - which is why players like Duncan, KG and even players like Brand, Sheed don't get enough props in my opinion...

At the end of the day, I think the importance of defense relies marginally on two things,

a) The scheme your team is running,

b) Somewhat the position you are playing, even though defense is very important over all positions, I think it is a necessity to have a defensive front court, more so than a defensive back court...[/QUOTE]

^ Very true

[QUOTE=Aussie Dunker]In my opinion this question isn't valid because to me, it is far more important for a C to be good at defense, at far more important for a PG to be good on offense. It ias hard to scale a defensive C against an offensive PG.[/QUOTE]
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=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]

Again not the most valid question as one player is arguably top 10 and the other might be top 100.. But I get the idea of what you are asking:

From my post before, to me, it is more beneficial in today's league to have a more offensive skewed PG rather than a defensive skewed PG - so you go with Parker.

Another example of two players who are fairly similar in status in the NBA.

Lopez or Noah?

Noah may not be the better player, but I take Noah purely because defense is very important to me at the C position -

[QUOTE=Carbine]People prefer Garnett over Barkley because Garnett can give you great offense as well as being one of the best defenders EVER, not just his era.

Barkley gives you more explosive and better offense, but he's not anywhere near Garnett on the other side of the ball.

With Garnett, you have a #1 option (or 1B option) and one of the best anchors on defense ever. I think lots of people would prefer that over what Barkley brings to the table (more offensive firepower)[/QUOTE]

Good Post.

KG is among one of the best team defensive players ever - definitely among the most sophisticated and smartest. As for the offense/defense comparison Barkley had strong support of very good offensive player to compliment his offensive game quite a few times in his career. If KG had very good defensive players, like Barkley had good offensive players in his career, it wouldn't be much of an argument. KG would be so far ahead it wouldn't be be up for discussion.

And KG offensive style blended in perfectly when he had offensive players. Barkley more often than not offensively clashed when he had good offensive players. And if KG had very good offensive support its very possible he could have averaged what Barkley did for a 8 year prime. Barkley was explosive but he wasn't consistent. KG was the most intense player and consistent player for years.

[QUOTE]How bout Scottie Pippens defensive Job on John Stockton and the Utah Jazz. The Bulls won 96-54. Which is the largest margin of victory in an NBA finals. Thanks to Pippens defense. I remember reading that Pippen in some way accounted for 20 of the Jazz 26 TOs. His +/- was +42. He drew charges, steals, blocked a shot, played help, played great man D, rebounded, he was everywhere. It was so bad that Jerry Sloan sent tapes to the league accusing Pippen of illegal defense.*

[/QUOTE]
Id like to get youre opinion on this response to you young X

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=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]
The PG position's defensive impact isn't much and can be covered by team defense.

[QUOTE=iamgine]The PG position's defensive impact isn't much and can be covered by team defense.[/QUOTE]

Exactly right mate

The PG position probably deserves its own formula, more in the 75/25 favoring offense....maybe as high as 80/20

PG - 75/25 or 80/20

Wing - 65/35 or 70/30

PF's - 60/40 or 65/35

Centers - 50/50

[QUOTE=Carbine]The PG position probably deserves its own formula, more in the 75/25 favoring offense....maybe as high as 80/20

PG - 75/25 or 80/20

Wing - 65/35 or 70/30

PF's - 60/40 or 65/35

Centers - 50/50[/QUOTE]

Your system is good in theory, even though there are some exceptions,

The weighting looks about right, except in my opinion, I would have the C at about 35/65 in favor of D,

But I think we can all agree that having a two way player is far more beneficial right :cheers: