Don't get me wrong, I do know "outscoring" doesn't mean "playing better offense". When you want to talk about logic, you said "Logically, if you're outscoring your opponent then you are also out-defending them, and vice versa. ". I point out that there is a logic flaw in your statement. Agree or disagree? .
It depends on how you define the terms. The poster I was responding to essentially said that you need better offensive players to "outscore" your opponent, implying that outscoring means "playing better offense". If that's how we understand offense (how much you score against your opponent), then we must take an analogous interpretation of defense (how much you allow your opponent to score). Given that, then yes if you're "outscoring" your opponent then necessarily you are also out-defending them.
The statement means you have to be able to score after you defend. Chuck can't score, thus you can't take advantage of being a good defender. but of course you knew that, and just was trying to find something to defend wack chuck hayes!
When you have two guys on the court who could easily score you 50 or 60 points , you can afford to have a defensive/rebounding specialist like Hayes out there on the court. When teams front Yao and use Hayes's defender to put behind Yao, you cant afford to have him out on the floor.
Actually, I fully understood you points, but you didn't fully understand my points. For you and those of you who think defense is more important or equally important, please think it over again, it is not true. On the offense side, sky is the limit, you can keep improving your offense. On the defense side, you can keep improving your defense too, but there are some limitations. Even a great defender (or defensive team) can't block every shot and can't prevent a great shooter from shooting. For example (just example), if there is a great 3pt shooter Novak III, who can shoot much better than Novak. Novak III just catch and shoot, it doesn't matter who defend him or how to defend him, he can make most of his 3s. Clearly, logically, offense >> defense. In reality, I also think offense >> defense. .
Great offense can beat great defense. Ever hear a commentator say "He was defended very well, but still made the shot"?? Thing is, its very tough to do that consistently. Lebron made a couple of impossible shots last night(that Reggie Miller/Dan Majerle range 3 pointer being one of them) that the defense was spot on. But that defense also made him miss some shots that he usually makes.
It is very difficult assess in a "laboratory" whether it is better to play Hayes or not. Basically, it boils down to: do we gain more offensive efficiency than we give up in defensive efficiency when we play Scola (or Landry) instead of Hayes. I say yes because I think we give up a bit on the defensive end while gaining a whole lot more on the offensive end. But who really knows!
What do you mean "out defend them"? If you mean "make them score less than we do", yeah, it is the object of the game.
Battier must have loaned Hayes a truckload of his intangibles. I don't see a whole lot that Hayes provides defensively that isn't met by Landry.
Yours Truly, Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles j/k I think Landry definitely grabs boards and loose balls like Chuck but put him down low with Boozer or Duncan and you will see the difference.
Yup. Hustle wise Hayes and Landry are probably equal. But Landry is not anywhere near the post-defender that Hayes is. In the playoffs, if we face a team with a domininat PF, I don't see how Hayes won't get signficant minutes. But yes, his days as a starter are over, and he is best suited as a specialty player.
You asked me to explain my post, saying it was logically flawed, and I did. Now you're saying you already understood it. You are shifting the discussion to a new direction: how much do offensive players impact their team's offense, and how much do defensive players impact their team's defense? It's an interesting topic, and I think you had a thread on this a few weeks. I don't have any new thoughts to add beyond what I said there.
And you have to be able to defend after you score. Offense and defense, at the team level, contribute equally to "outscoring" your opponent. And that's not an argument that Chuck should play more than Landry or Scola. As long as we're playing well, I'm going to trust the coach's judgement on issue. It's just an obvious observation on the reality of the game.
Or face up defender, for that matter. But Landry is definitely improving on that end. I'm much more comfortable with his defense now than I was 2 months ago.
Dominant PF's sort of like Carlos Boozer? There must be more than one person named "Carlos Boozer"...Surely you can't be referring to the Carlos Boozer who averaged 21.6 ppg for the regular season and who went off for 41 points in Game 2 and 35 in Game 7 with a series average of 24.6 ppg.... On second thought, maybe there are 2 players named "Chuck Hayes"...there's that defensive stopper and "Intangibles God II" and then there's that "Chuck Hayes" that was a minus 3 for the 2007 playoffs with a Roland Rating of minus 10.4
poprocks said: You replied: LOL, I didn't shift it to a new direction, you shifted it. I did fully understand your points. You didn't fully understand poprocks' points and my points. There is nothing wrong in poprocks' statement. You didn't understand it, and shifted poprocks' "out defend" to your own "out defend". Right? .
