offense >> defense

If what you're saying is true about teams wanting offensive players, shouldn't Daryl Morey load up on undervalued defensive players, since they're not in as high demand as flashy offensive players? That's one of the basic maxims of Moneyball in baseball; find players with undervalued traits, and trade away or avoid players with overvalued traits.

I suspect that there are less and less "defensive stoppers" simply because the defensive rules have changed so much, and the players have become so talented on offense. I would consider it similar to the extinction of the shutdown cornerback in football. As far as I'm concerned, there are absolutely none left; due to the continuing influx of WR talent, and the illegal contact rules. In the NBA, the situation is the same.

I also believe that as fans, our perception of a good offensive player is far lower than our perception of a good defensive player because there's no sophisticated stat to quantify defense. A guy who averages 10 points on 42/21/63 shooting is a good-to-great offensive weapon, while a guy who makes all his defensive rotations, takes fouls for our superstars, confuses and frustrates the man he's defending is merely an average-to-good defender. To have the reputation as an elite defender, you usually have to be either able to harass the opponent's point guard, shut down their best player, or own the paint as a big-man.

A defensive specialist must be more disruptive to the other team's offensive plans than his own team's plan. Instead of thinking of a strictly defensive player as playing 4-on-5 on offense, how about considering that a good defender who can shut his man down or get into his head can make it 4-on-5 on defense?

I subscribe to the model that defense still wins championships, because I believe that physicality, toughness and aggressiveness win championships, and these are traits traditionally attributed to teams with killer defenses. Having a reputation as a defensive oriented team influences the referees into giving you the benefit of the doubt on rough play under the basket. It lets you hand-check on the perimeter, and use two hands on a guy posting up. It gives you an aura of invincibility, making even the open shots a little tougher because they're so rare. It makes the mentally weak players curl up into a ball and become non-factors.

But this only happens when you have elite defenders, and a great system for them to play in. Merely having a good defense, as most teams, including the Rockets, have now requires a good offense as well. I sort of understand how you're attempting to say that unless a team is truly elite on one end of the spectrum, they're better off with good offensive players rather than good defensive ones. I'm just wondering whether management has taken away too much from a championship-level defense in search of offensive talent. I believe that a championship can be won with efficient players on offense and an elite defense, or a great offense and great defense, or an elite offense and good defense. From what I can tell of the Rockets this year, we were an inefficient offense and elite defense in the Van Gundy years, and now under Adelman are merely good on offense and defense. The million dollar question is; could we have improved an inefficient offense more quickly under Van Gundy than it will take this group of players to become an elite offense under Adelman?(because I'm damn sure the defense isn't going to get any better).

Let's hope so.

 

This is a pretty shallow crappy analysis. It's just a bunch of assumptions without definitions or backing.

What exactly is "good offense" or "good defense"?

Is Ricky Davis a good offensive player? Is he better on offense (or for your offense) than, say, Rafer Alston or Derek Fisher?


Can you even give examples of players of each type and teams of each type that you listed and provide some analysis on how teams of each type have faired in the history of the leauge?

 

First let me just ask have you ever played team basketball before? Defense is NEVER an individual effort, it's always a TEAM effort.

Second, you are talking about the NBA, one player doesnt neutralize another player. A great defender never completely stops an offensive player, a great offensive player never completely dominates a great defensive player.

Third EVERYONE has to play defense not just the 'defender'.

Fourth, you were the one who didnt want to argue market value or salary cap but somehow you tried to quantify salary into how much a player is worth then tried to quantify if they are a defender or offenser by your definitions which haven't relaly been explained well in the first place. Players get paid for different reasons not just because they're great offensive players or defensive players. You have to consider need of the team, how marketable is the player, etc. And their salary does not always reflect what the player is actually worth.

Lastly, most superstars focus on both offense and defense; the only reason why you would think they're mainly 'offensers' is because great offense is easier to quantify with statistics while it is much harder to analyze good defense.

I honestly am not trying to attack you personally, but either you are not making any sense or you just can't explain it well because your theory is quite ridiculous. If you want to get more insight on what it takes to build a championship caliber team please read this article. It may not be completely correct in all aspects but it's much more understandable than your theory.

http://www.82games.com/dennis.htm

 

One of the things Morey has talked about in the past is the differences between baseball and basketball. First, the draft in baseball and basketball is very different -- you can't even draft on medium term needs in baseball, and getting a productive player out of your first round pick is virtually a 50-50 proposition. Even more importantly when it comes to the analysis is the nature of the games itself. Baseball is a series of one on one matchups: pitcher v. hitter. This is not saying that defense is unimportant in baseball, just that this won't matter in the grand scheme of things as all hitters will face roughly the same defense on average over the course of a season.

Basketball is not a series of one on one matchups. People are constantly coming in and out of the lineup on substitutions, sometimes players are double teamed, defenders switch, and the list can go on. Managers can't put an extra guy in the outfield against a good hitter -- coaches can put an extra man on a good scorer.

You put a guy who's a consistent .300-30-100 guy in just about any lineup, and he'll probably put up roughly those numbers again. Not the same in basketball -- just look at the change in Garnett, Allen, and Pierce's numbers this year. Garnett's points, rebounds, and assists are all down versus last year, but he's playing some of the best basketball of his career.

Look at the top 20 scorers in the league. (Without me actually double checking, so these numbers could be slightly off)

4 were #1 overall (LBJ, Yao, Howard, Iverson)
8 were top 5 picks
15 were lotto picks
2 were non-lotto first rounders (Kevin Martin and Gerald Wallace...both SAC)
3 were 2nd rounders (Arenas, Boozer and Redd)

So of the top 20 scorers, 15 were lotto picks, and of the 3 second rounders, 2 left as soon as possible (Arenas/Redd). One of the other non-lotto first rounders was lost in the expansion draft.

All this means is the premiere scoring talents are much easier to identify, and thus require either a high draft pick investment, a big chunk of your salary cap, or a lot of talent in a trade.


The team aspect of defense is constantly overlooked. Chuck Hayes doesn't get an assist if he successfully switches on the PnR and forces a contested 18 foot jump shot. As durvasa has already mentioned, offenses can dictate what they want to do. If you're the Mavericks and Dirk is being neutralized by a scrub, you can watch as Yao is attacked by Josh Howard, or Jerry Stackhouse makes a mockery of David Wesley. A good offensive player can find a way to get the ball and score; a good defensive player can be taken out of the action (though he takes his man out of the action with him).

Anyhow, with regard to why defenders are cheaper, it's a supply/demand issue. Productive, undersized 4s seemingly are found every year in either the 2nd round or undrafted. The league has dozens of Hayes-ish guys...Mongo Smith, Millsap, Reggie Evans, Najera, Brandon Bass, Anderson Varejao to name a few. All of those guys were 2nd rounders or undrafted. One of the best defenders 2000s (Ben Wallace) was undrafted. One of the best defenders of the 80s/90s (Dennis Rodman) was a 2nd rounder. You're much more able to find a good-great defender using fewer resources.

Think if you were to watch just one NBDL game. One player is not doing much on offense all game-- you're much more likely to attribute it to him being a poor ball-handler or slow than his defender being a lockdown type. And you may be right. I think it's much more difficult to tell if a guy's a dominant defender because of the competition relative to the guy with the silky jump shot, 40 inch vertical, or a killer crossover.

 

Seriously, wth is this guy talking about? My BS detector is having an orgasm already.

"There are much more offensive players than defenders." "Spurs is special."

Durvasa et al, I appreciate the effort you guys are making trying to debate this guy, but man does he have some alien thought patterns.

 

An easy retort to the OP. Suns, Warriors, and Nuggets are offensive oriented teams and haven't even been to the Finals.

Spurs and Pistons are defensive oriented teams that have won championships, even in an NBA era where offense is promoted heavily from new rule changes.

 

Your argument may be true on a player by player basis but to be a great team you need a combination of both good offensive and defensive players.

The Spurs have Bowen, Duncan and Horry and had Robinson to compliment the team's offensive abilities. The Pistons had Ben Wallace then could never quite get to the finals again once they let Big Ben leave Detroit. The Bulls had Pippen and Jordan who could both play great defense in addition to their scoring abilities.

Some of the best offensive teams always fall short because they lack defense: The Suns are the best current example.

Some of the best defensive teams always fall short because they lack offense: The Rockets under JVG are the best recent example.

Sure, the Suns went further than the Rockets but neither went to the finals during recent years where they were offensive and defensive powerhouses, respectively. They both lacked what the other had.

Championship-caliber teams that are perennial contenders can play both ends of the court: The Spurs, Pistons and Bulls of the Jordan era are prime examples.

I am not sure what the point of your argument was but it doesn't make sense on a team level.

Let's build a 5 player team like you did in your examples. Maybe you choose an "offenser" as your first, second and maybe even third players. But, you would want your 4th and maybe 5th players to be good defensive players to balance your team. Offensers may be slightly more important than defenders, but not by much. You probably want a 3/2 ration of offensers to defensers and at the most 3.5/1.5 if you are looking to build an optimal model using your logic.

 

I find the shoddiness of the logic train to be offenserive

 

Individual defense is hard to quantify. It's often a he say she say situation. Unless defenders put up amazing rebounding, shot blocking stats or locks down superstars consistently, their impact is hard to be recognized widely around the L and among the fans. It's hard to quantify the amount a defender's defensive impact. So while individual defense can be underrated because of it, it can also be overrated by defense lovers, due to the extra subjectivity of its nature.

A great offensive player can put up 50, or 60 points a game, but how can a great defender cut the other team's scoring by 50 points just by himself?

Wilt Chamberlain once scored 100 in a game, can Bill Russel hold a team that average 100 to zero points?

Shaq fouls out stars, stars' backups and backups' backup, he can take the center position out of a game, can defenders take a position out of game?

Jordan beats double or triple teams, can a great defender defend 2 or 3 players at once?

The initiators are always in a strategical advantage over reactors. Offense is initiator, defense is reactors. Teamwise, both O and D are imperative and equally important in winning, but when it comes to individual players, generally all offense bad defense players are more important than all defense bad offense players, case in point, if Steve Francis in his great days makes the same salary of Chuck Hayes, which player would you choose to sign???

 

100% accurate

Signed,

Jordan and Hakeem

 

i get a headache trying to follow his "logic"

like someone else said, offense does have an inherent first mover advantage. But offense is also not as consistent as defense. Regardless, both is needed.

A clearly disguised JVG bashing thread

Just like the "JVG ruined Yao" one you had earlier

 

That is sort of the point of a forum isn't it?

 

Earth to Blackbird -- we need you to return to orbit immediately, over.

 

Explain.

 

hard to do when you really don't know much about basketball