offense >> defense

Attention Blackbird and Bbjai:

Please stop. Exchange personal email addresses and finish your discussion privately.

 

Lols actually I was quite bored at work so i just kept replying

 

this guy has been giving hard proof and still reject it based on his theory, which is based on nothing but his own skewed reasoning. No one can be this dense...can they?

you said it yourself . one exception. No, ignore the other cases that disprove your claim and focus on the anomaly that "supports" yours.

But there is a valid reason...namely effort during the regular season. That was a helluva laker team that could "coast" through many games without having to focus on defense. Something shaq is known for. If memory serves, their defense picked up heavily in the playoffs.

couple of differences in playoffs vs reg season.

lakers 01 Opponent FG% in playoffs = .408. Regular season = .438
lakers 01 Opponent PPG in playoffs = 90.6 Reagular season = 97.2

Lakers 01 FG% in playoffs = .468 Regular season = .465
Lakers PPG in playoffs = 103.4 Regular season 100.6


as you can see, they stepped up their defense and had one of the greatest postseason runs of all time by only losing 1 game.

THey certainly were not a "great" defensive team, but holding teams to .408 througout the playoffs is pretty impressive

 

LOL

this blackbird guy is hilarious. he has been proven wrong time and time again, but responds with "if you don't like, don't read" as opposed to debating.

he also has no idea about the concept of team defense, which has little to nothing to do with individuals considered elite one-on-one defenders.

i'm done, as he cannot prove me wrong

 

BAH
Im not going to give up going to keep arguing

The Majority of the championship teams have been proven to have high team defence OVER high team offence. We've already listed several times in previous posts that that most good teams have great defence and do not favour offence over defence. You can't take individual players and team compositions and go, wow this team has more offence minded players it is offence focused. Case in point is Rafer Alston who is a HORRIBLE one on one defender but above average team defender. In fact if you look at the Rockets team under JVG there was only two great individual defenders, Chuck Hayes and Battier. You could say that last years Rockets team was in fact a offensive team based on the roster AND salary ratio. The idea is flawed

 

your post 84 doesn't even respond to that statement about winning teams. You make no statement in regards to why most championship teams are ranked higher in defence then offence, only that Good NBA teams defence is important but offence is more important. Its like saying 9 of the last 14 championship teams are not good NBA teams.

 

You could say that if skill and height you listed were <b>REAL</b> data like those defense and offense numbers . Too bad the data you pull out from NobodyKnowsWhere is like your statement : <b>FALSE</b>.

This is becoming a comic.

 

Blackbird just went from using "rough guess" to using completely false data to defend his point. How low can that be.

 

being? more likes its been...we are moving into sad

 

I guess I see your point, I guess you are trying to say that since most people value offensive oriented players more than defensive oriented players, it's an indication of the league valuing team offense more than team defense. Because, duh, team offense is weaved by offensively good players, and the same goes for team defense.

Why don't we see things in more perspectives? I think O and D are equally important in winning the ring, they are two weapons to create or increase the lead MARGIN, which is the only thing that matters in winning a game. You can't win without either one weapon. From the standpoint of achieving the ultimate GOAL, they are equally important.

However, I do acknowledge your point of offense being more important than defense to certain degree, from the standpoint of team building PROCESS. The reason is simply because it's easier to teach offensively good players to play defense, then the other way around. Also, offense emphasizes on smoothness, defense emphasizes on intensity. Couple that with the fact that initiators - the offense - have strategical advantage over reactors(defense). Therefore, team offense is in nature the easier way to increase lead margin than team defense. So, when it comes to the PROCESS of building a team and selecting players, the priority should be getting team offense down pat FIRST, then to worry about team defense. That principle means, GMs should try to first get enough players that are offensively sound with defensive potential, rather than to first get defensively sound players with offensive potential, and pair them with coach that coaches both ends. That's not to say that defensive specialists shouldn't be signed, it's just suggesting an approach in team building in general.

Let us use the 04-05 Rockets as an example, the Rockets assembled Bobby Sura, David Wesley, Jon Barry, and Mike James mainly on the fly. At the point of their signings, it's clear that those players, with the exception of Mike James, were offensively sound players without hope on playing great individual defense. Sura had bad knees, Wesley was an undersized two guard, Barry moved slower than a man on wheel chair. That team was built to be an offensively oriented team that compansates JVG's offensive ineptitude. On the other hand, JVG taught them to play team defense to compensate their individual defensive shortcomings, such a marriage had great regular season success. However, team defense can only go so far until the end of regular season, Sura, Wesley, and Barry's individual defensive shortcomings were heavily exploited by the Mavs in the playoffs. Jason Terry ran circles around Sura, Stackhouse posted up Wesley, J.Howard outquicked Jon Barry. The 04-05 Rockets' success reflected the team building philosophy of securing offensively sound players first with defensive potential, at least they got the first part down. The part they didn't get was the players selected had enough offense but didn't have individual defensive potential, due to their age/injuries/physical shortcomings.

 

this is probably the reason why people abuse Hayes and Battier so much. They do alot, they can even make up their lack of scoring by keeping the other player low in scoring too. Defence does pay off

but a lack of offence makes it harder for Yao and Mcgrady. I think thats the problem.

 

I'd say this logic is from Mars, but frankly it stinks so I'm guessing it came straight from his butt.

 

In regards to this thread, as Timmy-D once famously said: "That's retaaaded." Lock it up, Clutch... for the love of everything good in this world.

 

lock it up and gag blackbird

 

blackbird, firstly I just want to say that if I offended you with my tone earlier, I apologize. I was frustrated that I wasn't getting through to you, just as I'm sure you were with me. Let's agree to keep things civil. I promise not to talk down to you, and I hope you do the same. I think this is the only sensible way to continue if we want to come to a common understanding. And if, in the end, we can't come to an agreement, it's really no big deal. Agreed?

A 2 team league has the following properties:

(1) each team only plays each other
(2) the points scored by one team is always the points allowed by the other team, and vice versa

If you have truly found a way to reduce a 30-team league to an equivalent 2-team league, then let us first agree that it should exhibit these properties.

Now, the two teams in question ("A" and "B") are actually two sets of teams ... A1..A15 and B1..B15. Immediately, we find that the first property is broken. Teams A1..A15 do not exclusively play teams from B1..B15. In fact, in an NBA schedule, every team plays each other. So, your example doesn't apply to how an actual NBA league functions.

But regardless, let us suppose just for argument sake that you can divide the league into two sets of teams that only play each other. Does the second property hold? If you take the averaged points scored from teams A1..A15, they are equal to the average points allowed by teams B1..B15, and vice versa. This means that you, just as in the 2-team league, you can't determine if teams A1..A15 are better offensively than B1..B15, nor can you determine if they are better defensively than B1..B15. However, you still can distinguish offense/defense amongst teams within each set. So, for example, you could make a reasonable inference than A2 is a better offensive team than A5, if it scores more on average against B1..B15 than A5.

And as I tried to explain above, this works only if you are comparing teams that don't belong in the same set (e.g. A2 and B5). By reducing the 30-team league to a 2-team league the way you did, you lose information that distinguishes teams within each set (e.g. A2 and A5).