And we know that high octane offense wins championships Signed, 98-99 San Antonio Spurs 99-02 Los Angeles Lakers 02-03 San Antonio Spurs 03-04 Detroit Pistons 04-05 Miami Heat 05-06 San Antonio Spurs
Ok, Let me say it again. Does it sound better? Sorry poor JVG lovers. Most NBA coachs/GMs disagree with JVG, and most NBA coachs/GMs agree with Antoni. It is time to eat crow. .
If only offensive focused teams won championships, then you would be right on. Unfortunately, you are inccorect yet again. EDIT: and it's D'Antoni
I didn't say that defense is not important. My point is that offense is more important than defense. .
yes, and my point was that the last 8 years of championships have been won by teams that play great defense first, then an efficient offense as well. no NBA champ has played a style similar to Phoenix.
wow I dont think I have ever seen someone so completely owned in their own thread. honestly blackbird, go learn how the game is played and learn something of the history of the NBA before you make another thread. you just odnt know enough to have a good debate with the slow people in here, much less guys like durv, Nike, and Herrera....who all know their stuff. those guys are just eating you up, and you keep coming back for more. just wow.
Listen to everyone telling you your assumptions are flawed. Please stop trying to relate this to economic theory. You're not even in the ballpark. The NBA isn't close to resembling an efficient market. a.) There are high transaction costs -- fans develop loyalty to players, making them more difficult/less likely to trade. Similarly, there are chemistry concerns that make trading for a better player a poor move because of the time it takes to learn an offense. b.) There's a salary cap and roster limit -- teams willing and able to pay a certain price sometimes (often) aren't allowed to do so. c. The rookie process -- This destroys your overvalued/undervalued theory immediately. Every star player on a rookie contract is undervalued. Further, the allocation of these players is not set by the market. d.) What is a player's real value? Players are not securities. There are no future cash flows to be derived and discounted back. e.) There is no equilibrium. Teams can't all follow the same strategy because there isn't an endless supply of Tim Duncans or Steve Nashes. The NBA is hardly a perfect market. Beginning on that assumption is not going to make things any better.
You just want to tell me that you, durv, Nike, and Herrera.... know more than most coachs/GMs/NBA professionals. WOW .
Don't get discouraged blackbird. I think this is an important topic, and though it may not seem so from the responses in this thread, I think a lot of people basically agree with your perspective. I don't, but there are some knowledgeable posters here that probably do (and therefore dislike all the minutes Shane and Chuck get). One point of confusion, not sure if it was already addressed, is that there is a difference between the importance of defense at the team level, and at the individual level. I would say defense and offense are equally important at the team level, roughly. Year to year, if you look at the correlation between winning% and offensive and defensive efficiency, there are some fluctuations but no real pattern that suggests one is more important than the other. That's based on regular season, though. Perhaps a postseason analysis would indicate that one is more important. At the individual level, because of the "first mover" property of offense, a great individual offensive player has more impact over an offensive possession than a great defensive player has over a defensive possession. I would make an exception for dominant shot blockers like Hakeem or Bill Russell, but for the most part I think that holds true. I don't have any evidence to back up that, of course ... just my hunch. But I think another issue we should be discussing is the converse -- how does a poor offensive player negatively impact his team on offense versus a poor defensive player on defense? It's different, because now we're not talking about the ability of a player to make plays on either end, but rather the ability of the team to overcome a given player's weaknesses. If we want to assess how much a Chuck Hayes would help us versus, say, a Carl Landry, I think you have to be able to judge both the impact of their strengths and weaknesses. I don't think this is as straightforward as many fans may believe.
durvasa, thank you. Good points/questions, I really don't know the answers. All I can say is that the real NBA games are too complex. I will think it over again. .
hahahahahahahahah you just "dont get it" do you It isnt a matter of what we know versus the guys who do the real NBA jobs, its a matter of YOU not knowing ANYTHING. the guys I mentioned may not know as much as the pros do, but they are freaking Einstein's of basketball knowledge compared to you. And btw...Im not in this, I refuse to waste my time trying to show you why you are totally and completely WRONG...you have clearly shown you refuse to admit when logic and common sense make you look the fool. I only posted to make fun of someone who has been owned REPEATEDLY, and yet still keeps coming back for more. carry on putz...you are clearly showing the masses that you couldnt find your ass with a flashlight and both hands.
Recognizing that you don't know all the answers (same here) puts you well ahead of many others on this board, in my book.
C'mon, Durvasa, don't be a lazy intellectual slash stats geek Let's get to the heart of the matter and do a postseason vs. regular season analysis for the last seven years, i.e. the '00-'01 through the '06-'07 seasons. As long as we can agree for purposes of argument that the only statistics needs are those officially recognized by the NBA, then all we need is the information that can be found here (link to ESPN stats page): http://tinyurl.com/2w6zru The hypothesis to be tested is the notion that defense wins championships.
