The visual aid-obsessed attorney in me envisions playoff brackets for each of the past seven years with stat lines underneath each team's name so the regular and post season stats can be readily compared, and the viewer can see who advanced. Just from an observational point anybody could see whether a particular team held down it's opponents FG% in the playoffs, etc. I will play with this later. It can be done without much ado. But that's more of a statistical comparison than a statistical analysis. I'll have to think about the stats.
It indicates that players are more concerned with offense than defense. It means nothing in regards to which is more important. Also, to answer your question about why offensive-minded players make more money...that's easy. Every team needs one or two offensive superstars to succeed in today's NBA (usually). Therefore, a great offensive player is vital and they also get more endorsements and above all put fans in the seats, as people go to games to see great offensive players and not good defenders. It is easier to be a better defensive player than it is to be a better offensive player. The difference is that being a good O-player just takes talent and ability, while being a good d-player takes heart and effort and intelligence. A good defender like a Bruce Bowen isn't going to bring fans into the seats and sell shoes and products, so they get paid less. Does that mean that defense is less important? No. It just means that offensive minded players get paid more b/c they bring in more revenue for teams (and of course you have to have a good offense as well to win in the NBA). That said, you need a great defense in order to WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS. You have to be a decent offensive team as well. Here are the stats on offense and defense of the champs all the way back to the Rox, days. Notice that there is a positive correllation between these teams not only having a good offense, but a great defense as well. 06-07 Spurs- Offense (5th) Defense (2nd) 05-06 Heat- Offense (7th) Defense (9th) 04-05 Spurs- Offense (8th) Defense (1st) 03-04 Pistons- Offense (18th) Defense (2nd) 02-03 Spurs- Offense (7th) Defense (3rd) 01-02 Lakers- Offense (2nd) Defense (7th) 00-01 Lakers- Offense (2nd) Defense (21st) 99-00 Lakers- Offense (4th) Defense (1st) 98-99 Spurs- Offense (11th) Defense (1st) 97-98 Bulls- Offense (8th) Defense (3rd) 96-97 Bulls- Offense (1st) Defense (4th) 95-96 Bulls- Offense (1st) Defense (1st) 94-95 Rockets- Offense (6th) Defense (12th) 93-94 Rockets- Offense (15th) Defense (2nd) As you can clearly see, despite one or two cases, teams are consistently in the top % of defense the years they win championships, which should put your ideas to rest about it being about a D'Antoni style high flying offense with little attention paid to defense. This averages out to 7th ranked offenses and 5th ranked defenses.
Blake, you did a very good job to get these numbers. But you still didn't understand what I am talking about. Let me tell you again, all these facts can't prove my following statement wrong: To be a good NBA team, defense is important, but offense is more important than defense. Let me give you an example. I can always say: To be a good NBA center, height is important, but basketball skill is more important than height. You can always show me that all those good NBA centers are very tall and have very good basketball skills. But you can't say: To be a good NBA center, basketball skill is important, but height is more important than basketball skill. Also, you can't say: To be a good NBA center, height is as important as basketball skill. Did you get it? I really hate to be a babysitter, but I do think I am a babysitter right now. .
You can stop using your childish analogies. I understand that you are saying a good offense is more important than a good defense. You seem to be a smart guy with limited knowledge about basketball.
wow, what else can you say. I know you hate me and keep bashing me. Believe it or not, all my posts are reasonable. .
That isn't being reasonable, its being derogatory. Blake gave you the examples.. in the past 14 years teams with better Defense succeeded in winning the chip. Which is the ultimate goal correct? The trend shows that it was more important to be defensively sound than to have the better rated offenses. How is that hard to understand? You are using a different basis for justification than is reasonable. If the goal is to win a championship, then we just showed you that the defensively ability is important. The average of the offense was worse than the defense of the winning teams.
I do think these analogies are very useful for some of you guys. If I didn't give you an analogy, you still can't get my point and keep bashing me. .
It's been five pages and I haven't seen any proof to support your "to be a good team ,offense is more important than defense" argument. You ask proof from other posters, but why didn't you give proof first since you are the one to make a claim? At least that Blake guy has the numbers to show Champiship have been won by teams with average 7th rank in offense, 5th rank in defense. So he might use this to say: " To be a chamionship team, defense is more important than offense." Even though this could still be flawed, it's still much better than you statement with nothing to back it up.
Rejecting the null hypothesis does not prove in the affirmative. You keep insisting others to prove you wrong; you haven't proved you're right.
I don't hate anybody, especially someone on a message board that I will never meet You started a thread...a thread where you wanted to discuss a topic. All I am doing is debating because I disagree with you. However, when you start a thread and want to debate something, you cannot just make a statement and then tell people to prove that you are incorrect without using facts of your own (or stats) to backup your theory. And in this thread, much like your argument that JVG ruined Yao Ming, when people counter your theories with facts and statistics, you immediately start saying that people don't understand what you are saying as opposed to trying to dissect their post and responding with a convincing argument.
Okay. Here is a perfect example of you making statements followed by my response. This clearly shows that I am addressing the exact points that you discussed in your post. How is this a misunderstanding? Read your post and them read my response. It indicates that players are more concerned with offense than defense. It means nothing in regards to which is more important. Also, to answer your question about why offensive-minded players make more money...that's easy. Every team needs one or two offensive superstars to succeed in today's NBA (usually). Therefore, a great offensive player is vital and they also get more endorsements and above all put fans in the seats, as people go to games to see great offensive players and not good defenders. It is easier to be a better defensive player than it is to be a better offensive player. The difference is that being a good O-player just takes talent and ability, while being a good d-player takes heart and effort and intelligence. A good defender like a Bruce Bowen isn't going to bring fans into the seats and sell shoes and products, so they get paid less. Does that mean that defense is less important? No. It just means that offensive minded players get paid more b/c they bring in more revenue for teams (and of course you have to have a good offense as well to win in the NBA). BASICALLY your reasoning in that particular post is incorrect IMO and this is why
Please show, outside of Toronto, Memphis and Atlanta (two bad teams), examples of GM's trying to adopt D'Antoni style up and down offenses. Also, which teams have had serious playoff success utilizing that type of offense. A reason for their being a higher number of offensive minded players is because many NBA players are lazy and do not want to work hard on both ends of the court and don't understand, or at least don't care to understand, how to play good TEAM defense. They would rather focus on the offensive end of the court, where they get to make plays and score baskets b/c their stats look better and they get paid more money. Just because they get paid more does not mean that teams only care about offense...they just also need guys to score b/c you need to be balanced to be successful.
What? You call "a rough guess" proof? I'd like to have a law suit against you if I ever have to go to court. And why more offensive players(personally, I don't believe one dimensional offensive players are more than one dimensional defensive players in NBA) means offense is more important than defense? So let me make "a rough guess" by yourlotgic: Ratio of role players and star players is roughly 5/1 , so <b>role player is more important than star player.</b>.
I'm not trying to say that D'Antoni style is the best style. I'm trying to say that defense is important, but offense is more important than defense. .
Coach JVG prefers defense/defenders, then Rox will hire more and more defenders. Coach Antoni prefers offense/"offensers", then Suns will hire more and more offensers. If most NBA coachs/GMs agree with JVG, we will see more and more defenders in NBA. If most NBA coachs/GMs agree with Antoni, we will see more and more "offensers" in NBA. Does it make sense? It is not a rocket science. .
It's not rocket science, it's not even science. Use your logic, I don't to see why an offensive minded coach like Adleman plays Chuck Hayes as starter but sit Novak on the bench. Novak must be 10 times more important than Hayes with your logic.
