Can we change the focus of our team back to DEFENSE???

This is all about personnel. Our defense was better than we had any right to expect given who we usually ran out on the floor. I love the players, but Scola, Bud, and Martin are probably not going to be part of a top-five defense, especially with one another getting significant minutes.

I think the theme of this being about Van Gundy versus Adelman is a red herring and has been a red herring for a long time. Trade a 7-6 interior defender for a 6-6 interior defender, and that experiment probably has similar results nine times out of ten.

 

Here lies the flaw in your argument. A better way to say "Defense wins championships." is "Defense CAN win championships, but if your team doesn't have a cohesive offensive system or plan of attack, it will not succeed in the playoffs". The Bucks are a PRIME example of that.

 

You can spell championship without the D

but also , you can damn sure can spell lottery bound!!!

 

You're right, it's about personnel, but the organization is to blame for that. Good organizations like the Bulls, OKC, Heat draft big, defensive-minded players. We draft small offense-only players like Landry, Bud, Brooks.

 

You know what wins Championships...

Defense + Tier 1 Stars..

Tier 1 Stars = Picks 1-4 usually something we will never achieve because we are the middle of the road team.

Who has tier 1 stars because they sucked so bad at one point?

Miami - Check
Chicago - Check
Oklahoma -Check
San Antonio - Check
etc...

The only exception to the norm is Dallas... (But how often does a pick from 7-15 make a team into a championship caliber team)

 

Only one team has ever drafted a 1-4 pick via the draft lottery that led them to a ring.

 

No...it's not a fact. It's YOUR opinion. Nothing more.

If you want to tell me the Celtics won Championships because Bird, McHale and Ainge were all world defenders...you're smoking something illegal. The same can be said for the Showtime Lakers who played team defense to trigger offense.

Chuck Hayes on a good day might be defensively equal to Duncan. Chuck Hayes on the Spurs w/o Duncan is a Lottery team. Duncan plays both sides of the ball.

 

My HERO !!!!!!

Fighting the cliche slingers wherever they land.

DD

 

As stated earlier, its about balance. More important is you can't have a good defense with poor defenders across the board either. The rockets can bring thibs in to coach,but with martin,scola,and chase being below avg defenders,lowry being average,and hayes more like oakley as a defender,they're going t be a poor defensive team. Fact of the matter is if your best player or players aren't good defenders, your team won't be. He hs to be a good defender as an example to the other players.

 

I like how he notoriously bad posters always have each other's back. Reminds me of how the Republicans can always count on the redneck vote.

Anyway, it is indeed a fact.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7276

Defense wins championships. The Celtics that you reference that beat the Rockets had the best defense in the NBA.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove here. All I said is that defense wins championships (which is a fact) and that JVG is wrong when he said that "you can't play anyone who the defense doesn't have to defend". Unless you're saying that DeShawn Stevenson and Mario Chalmers and Joel Anthony must always be accounted for, you're just not saying anything of value, sorry.

 

Damn fight back ashishduh!!!...SMH

 

Nice counter...but still need a knockout mane

 

Does defense really win championships?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7276

Their finding, even when excluding the pre-merger era when the defense-focused Celtics monopolized the championship, is that being great at defense means you're slightly more likely to win a championship than being great at offense. My reading of these results: experienced teams are more likely to win championships, and its relatively rare for young or inexperienced teams to be really good at defense.

Of course, to win it all, you generally need to be great at both. For a rebuilding team should one take priority over the other?

 

This. Before the draft where the Rox may add three rookies into the mix next year*, their roster is sporting many young players: CBud (2 years experience), Dragic (3 years), Hill (2 years), Lee (3 years), PatPat (1 year), Thabeet (2 years) and TWill (2 years).

I would be impressed if the Rox became an average defense next year, while playing its younger players.

* I would not be surprised if one of the first round picks is traded for another first round pick in 2012/2013 and one of the other two picks is for an Euro player who won't play with the Rox next year.

 

I believe you can't really separate offense and defense, because they're connected. For example, the current Rockets team with prime Mutumbo might be more inclined to play Martin, due to having a big man clogging the paint to minimize Martin's defensive liability. While the Rockets with Dirk in the middle would be more inclined to play Lee at SG. To strengthen perimeter defense. Coaches will usually always try to mix their roster to find balance.

My personal theory on the matter: SUPERSTARS dictate how good your defense is, especially in today's NBA environment. Having superstar(s) pretty much allows you to fill your lineup with defenders. Chicago and old Lebron's Cleveland teams are perfect examples of how one elite offensive player can allow the coach to fill the rest of the rotation with defenders. So superstars indirectly affect defense by allowing defense-only players to shine.

 

Or you could be like Detroit and run an efficient team offense and team defense.

 

Umm, at pretty much every level of offensive and defensive effectiveness we're talking about a 50% better chance to win a championship with defense, that's not "slight".

But yeah, veteran teams usually play better defense but that doesn't mean young teams don't. OKC and CHA were two of the best defensive teams last year. Or just look at Chicago and Milwaukee this year. One could easily make the case that veteran teams learn to play team ball on the offensive end as well.

 

Oh, you mean balance...yes yes...exactly.

DD

 

I just meant you don't need superstars, read what I was responding to. You can win with players who know their role on both sides of the ball.

As far as defense vs offense, last I checked, there's been dozens of titles won by bad offensive teams and 0 by bad defensive teams. That's also borne out by the statistics that were posted earlier. A particular level of defense is about 50% more likely to win a championship that an equal level of offense.

There's no magical reason for this, only that's offense is not consistent by nature and defense is. This is common sense. To argue against it is absurd.

 

Pretty much. Its what I've said about when battier was on the roster. When you're a specialist on both ends, it really plays to the advantage of the opponet. Players need to be multiple both offensively and defensively. In the playoffs against the elites,korver,bogans,thabo, and guys like that get exposed. When you have players who are multiple,it makes the other team defend different. Example marion.

Marion isn't the same 20 and 10 guy he was in phoenix,but he still have some of those qualities. He's always been agood defender and rebounder along with finishing around the basket. As ugly as his shot is,he was an ok 3pt shooter and ok off of 3 dribbles. So when the ball is swung and teams run at him, he can put the ball down and get to the basket and either finish wityh a dunk or shoot one of those runners. Off rebounds and steals, he runs the floor and finishes also. So when the heat rotate and closes on him, its a lot different than closing on korver or bogans. They will have to respect his ability to shoot the 3 and put the ball on the floor.