. I got the idea from discussions in the following thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=141191&page=4 You may also find relative discussions in my another thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=140789 I found it is interesting, and wanted to start a new thread. Before that, I used to think that a good defense should be equal to a good offense. But now, I believe that a good offense is better than a good defense. The real NBA world is too complex to be discussed. So, I build a simplified model, there are only 4 different kind of players in this model: players who play good offense and good defense ( called "good player", no discussion needed) players who play good offense and bad defense ( called "good offenser", made a new word "offenser") players who play bad offense and good defense ( called "good defender") players who play bad offense and bad defense ( called "bad player", no discussion needed) Now, only offensers and defenders are left in the model. A good defender is an good one-dimensional player who can only play pure defense, actually, a good defender is just a good one-dimemsional defensive player. On the other hand, a good one-dimensional offensive player, who should be called "bad player", isn't a good offenser, and isn't good enough to play in NBA. The reason is that there are so many good offensers, but very few good defenders. Therefore, there is no place in NBA for a good one-dimensional offensive player, but there is a place in NBA for a good one-dimensional defensive player. Also, please beware that it is relatively easier for a good offenser to play some defense than a good defender to play some offense. Their real value should be: a good defender < a good offenser a good defender = a good one-dimensional offensive player How does a basketball team work in this model: team1 (5 offensers) >>>>> team2 (5 defenders) ... team1 (5 offensers) >= team2 (4 offensers, 1 defender) (questional case) team1 (4 offensers, 1 defender) >>> team2 (1 offenser, 4 defenders) ... team1 (4 offensers, 1 defender) >= team2 (3 offensers, 2 defenders) (questional case) team1 (3 offensers, 2 defenders) >= team2 (2 offensers, 3 defenders) (questional case) ... For these questional cases, team players may play a big role. But there is no reason to assume that defenders are team players, offensers are not. Also, it will be too complex to consider the player's market value and salary cap. In the model, because a good offenser is better than a good defender, there is no reason to say that team2 is better team1. My conclusion is that the offense is undervalued and the defense is overvalued, offense >> defense, and offense win championships. I still think defense is important, but it isn't as important as it was, such as so called "defense win championships". Now, Rox has a new coach Adelman who can play good offense, and new offensers such as Scola, Brooks, and Landry. Rox has a good future. I know that the real NBA is much more complex than this model. I did try my best . Please don't kill me if I'm wrong, thanks. .
This is confusing. You make the following assumption: A good defender is an good one-dimensional player who can only play pure defense, actually, a good defender is just a good one-dimemsional defensive player You seem to be defining defense as a "one-dimensional" skill. That simply isn't true, and so the rest of the argument falls apart. I don't agree with that, at least how you phrased it. I think discipline, attention to detail, and hustle can allow an otherwise "unskilled" player to be a good defender. That doesn't make it easier, and it doesn't mean that poor defenders can be relied on to play good defense when stops are needed.
OK, too much analysis. You need offense AND defense to win. That's why the Suns get killed by the Spurs every year in the playoffs.
I can reduced to two sentences for you: 1. Great offense beats great defense often times, since offense has the first mover advantage. 2. Defense depends and can be compensated a lot more by effort than offense.
They play mediocre defense as a team. Individual talent does not a championship defense make. The Spurs, on the other hand, are consistently in the top 4-5 in defensive efficiency every year, and manage to add a potent top 5 offense to that formula.
I do think good defense is "one-dimensional" and good offense is "multi-dimensional. As for the all-time great defense, it is another story. But an all-time great offensive player is still better than an all-time great defensive player. good offense > good defend great offense > great defend
a scrub's defense can take out a star's offense. overall defense << offense, maybe, but defense/(salary $) >> offense/(salary $). defense is underrated.
What part of good defense is "one-dimensional"? I guess staying in front of your man is all that counts by your definition. Pick-and-roll defense, good rotations, disciplined shot-contesting, avoiding unnecessary fouls, strength in the post, help defense, shot blocking, defensive rebounding, getting into position to take charges, getting steals, deflections --- all these things are merely parts of one dimension?
Good points. But a scrub's defense cannot always take out a star's offense. sometime, even a cheap great defender is a liability. .
problem with this model is that an NBA team has 5 players on the court and 12 guys to pull from - so you can't simplify things so much. It's not just a sum of individual match-ups, but how effective players are in helping their teammates exploit advantages or cover-up weakness on their own team and vice versa on opposing teams.
Good defense isn't one-dimensional. Bonzi Wells has quick hands and gets a decent share of steals. He's a pretty good rebounder. But he does so many other things very poorly, that he can't be considered simply a "good defender". Yao is a strong interior defender and rebounder, but struggles outside the paint. He's good against some teams, bad against others. Sometimes he's good and bad on the same night, depending on plays the other team is running. Your model simply isn't accurate.
For example, many Rox fans said Hayes is a top 5 defender. He is not a good defender, he is a great defender. I can't say Hayes is multi-dimensional. Even a great defender can't be multi-dimensional. How many "Hayes" are there? Very few. Most of the defenders are good defenders. .
I've said this many times, and it almost always holds true. A great defense will beat a great offense almost every time. A bad offense will beat a bad defense almost every time.
Sorry, this makes no sense. You assert that Hayes can't be multi-dimensional. Are you just saying that, by definition, or is there a reason behind it?
