View Single Post
Old 09-02-2006, 05:36 PM   #14
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: WINNING!
Posts: 7,258

I know it's not fair. But Kobe is a great perimeter shooter. Yes he does do everthing else better on the floor and has a better basketball IQ but the question thats being asked for the topic is iffy on my side because I doesn't say compare guys with 1 strong side of the players game and the other weak.

Ok lets still use Kobe and ask yourself would you want a Kobe Bryant with

stats are incorrect but thats not the point

a.maximum offensive shooting skills, average to weak defensive skills
30ppg 45%fg 37%3ptfg
b.maximum defensive skills(bruce bowen type), average to weak offensive skills
8ppg 38%fg 24% 3ptfg

Do the same with Ray Allen

a.maximum offensive shooting skills, average to weak defense
25ppg 46%fg 40%3pt fg%
b.maximum defensive skills, average to weak offesnive shooting skills
7ppg 38%fg 25%3pt fg%

I would take the offensive minded player every time. 100 times out of 100.

I stated this before, you have to score to win basketball games, but scoring can be found in so many players. There are so many versatile scorers today, if you need a player to put the ball in the hole, you can get one…we got great all around players in kobe,bron,wade,tmac,pierce,carter etc that can score and do about everything else. Then we got outstanding big men in brand,dirk,Duncan,yao,bosh that can also score and do other things. Then we got speciality scorers in people like Jrich,allen, redd…theres many many guys that can get you points nowadays. Scoring is not an issue, that’s why teams are constantly trying to acquire defensive players. players like bowen,artest,Jeffries are rare and not many players today have any interest in playing defense. The lack of perimeter defensive players results in so many scoring outputs and scoring dominance.

They will find away to put up points yes. They'd probaly make up for about half of the points he scored and shoot it a a low percentage and probaly wouldn't win very many games. Take Bowen off the Spurs and they'd still win there fair share of games. You would probaly say of course because Ray Allen is the better all rounded player.

Lets compare attributes of the two players by rating them from 1-10 so i can fairly match a player up to another. This is not going off topic because you keep saying its unfair to compare guys like Kobe to Raja in aspects of who is better or whatnot.

outside/permeter shooting defense
Bowen 5 9
Allen 9 5

There's other catergoires of course . All the intangibles like going for loose balls,picks ect.. ok thats one. The other big one is Ray Allen having the ball in his hands alot. Bruce doesn't get that one. But lets say he does and he feeds players just as much a Ray getting the 4 assits Ray does(Bruce only gets around 1and a half).

After Bruce having

-the ball in his hands as much as Ray
-doing all the intangibles just as good as Ray
and still having that great perimeter defense I still wouldn't take him over Ray because Ray's offense is still so much more valuble then Bowens defense.

Players face different matchups everytime and since perimeter defensive players are rare, allen has it easy most of the time. Look at the matchups between allen and bowen. How frustrated allen becomes and how bowen disrupts his game. Again, players like Allen average big time points because there aren’t enough defensive minded players today, everyone wants to score…but putting allen up against bowen, allen wont have it easy…

Another fair matchup would be a guy with the poorest defense and great shooting like Kyle Korver would be taken oevr a guy like Shandon Anderson(even if he was young), who has great defense and poor offense everytime.

This depends at what kind of team you have…with the increase of scoring trends nowadays, I would take Shandon anyday because he provides rare defensive play that will ultimately make it easier for my superstar player to play offense.

True. But I didn't say them not being all-stars doesn't make them less needed. They're less needed then a great shooter from the outside iis what i'm saying.They'e not all stars because the All-Star game is about what is most important part of the NBA and that is Scoring and Shooting. If defense was the most important part of the game and it was important to the extent of defense then we would have more defenders in all-star games. Don't get me wrong, defense is important but not as important as scoring. We've probaly seen more perimeter shooters in all star games with average to weak skills on defensive end then we have just defenders with average to weak offensive skills.

The All star game is about entertainment first and foremost. They don’t need a defensive player slowing the game tempo and making it tough. Hell, the game is full of oops and dunks like no other.
Any team can put up can come from down low or up top, from well rounded players or one dimensional players…defense is the deciding factor

I didn't dimiss this, I agree with it completely. But the offensive shooter does things like this . Frees guys up like I said, draws double teams and could ruin a whole defensive stretegy.

Locking up an offensive shooter will not only disrupt your opponents offensive scheme but will give your team more chances and breaks and extra possessions…example, steal, fastbreak, bucket. On the other other hand, an offensive player making a bucket or setting a teammate up…can always be countered on the other side by scoring. Defense affects both ways…

and yes perimeter shooters do turn into superstars and get well rounded because of the attribute of shooting outside. . It frees up there guys and sometimes causing them to yesss.. average more assits. Thats how they'e born. If you can shoot the ball it turns all other parts of you game better, gives you more options and you better stats.

A perimeter defensive player is capable of disrupting those attributes especially if you’re one of them players that can only shoot.

Theres also has been chamionship teams without shutdown defenders on the perimeter. Los Angeles Lakers of 2000 didn't have a shutdown defender in Kobe Bryant yet and they still won. All those teams you pointed out also had 3-5 great shooters from the outside as well. Well you say Lakers of 2000 were much better then there opponents for that to matter. Well the same could be said for the Pistons beating the Lakers in 2004.

Kobe Bryant was on All NBA 1st defensive team in 2000…made a game winning block in one of the games…80s lakers, 80s celts, 90s bulls, 2000s championship teams all had excellent perimeter defenders. When you get deep into the playoffs, defense wins games…that’s how its always been.

Game by game you would want Bowen to be on your team verses Lebron if you already had a Ray Allen.But Bowen he has no offensive game so he's a huge liabilty and i wouldn't risk that. Atleast Ray has a good chance of matching LeBron rather then having Bowen out there for 40 mintues not scoring much at all.

And what happens if ray allen fails to outscore lebron…there are 4 other guys on your team that can outscore lebron…having bowen will disrupt lebron, and thus influence the whole offensive unit of the cavs…giving your team better opportunities and breaks to put up points.

You can't always rely on defense as well. Look at team USA. They thought they put togther a great defensive squad. In the end there defense hit a low and they could match the outside shooting of Greece causing them to loss. Again the had good perimeter defenders(Battier,Melo) and it just didn't work.Thats a time when even good perimeter shooters couldn't stop great shooters.

You had players like bron,wade get abused by pick and roles. And in today’s nba, wade/bron aren’t known for defense either. What about Greece’s defense, all tournament long they were know for the defense, and USA was bricking up shot after shot…

You can always fall back on defense. Its your anchor. Through tough shooting nights, you need defense to get you through…

Look at the Dever Nuggets. Good defensive team but had NO outside shooting whatso ever. Did they get far? No. They have great defense so why should they look for a shooter? So they can get deeper in the playoffs and they know the can't get any deeper without a scorer. They acquired Evans,Patterson to even add to there defense but still hit a wall.Pistos of 2004 atleast had 2-3 great perimeter shooters. Else they wouldn't have got to were they were just on there solid defense alone

If we are going to use extreme cases then…lets look at the sonics. Both teams are in the same division…one team can shoot lights out but no perimeter D whatsoever, and the other team has good perimeter defense but lacks shooting…who was better this year? An extereme case will never get you through…

In today’s games, its hard to see how important perimeter defense really is because its not there anymore… players look like superheroes dominating the game in every way... the disparity between offense and defense nowadays is huge and defensive players are truly lacking. damn the handchecking rules

Scoring is always there, there will always be players that can score…and theres a variety of ways to do it…but perimeter defense is a rare commodity to have on your team…

Last edited by hotsizzle : 09-02-2006 at 05:39 PM.
hotsizzle is offline   Reply With Quote