Why do people act like scoring isn't the most important part of basketball?

[DatAsh]

Nonsense.. You said offense beat defense in the 80's...

But by showing that the league in the 80's had the same league-wide Ortg as today's league, I proved that it offense wasn't beating defense in the 80's anymore than it does now.

I'm not arguing 80/90s defense vs today's offense and defense at all.

[3ball]

Having the same league-wide Offensive Rating (Ortg) in the 80's as we have now, shows that offense wasn't beating defense back then any better than it is now.

That's all i'm saying and I'm sure you'd agree.

[DatAsh]

Having the same league-wide Offensive Rating (Ortg) in the 80's as we have now, shows that offense wasn't beating defense back then any better than it is now.

That's all i'm saying and I'm sure you'd agree.

Honestly, I haven't really looked at how league wide offensive ratings and defensive ratings compare to past eras. You probably know quite a bit more than I do on that subject.

[3ball]

Honestly, I haven't really looked at how league wide offensive ratings and defensive ratings compare to past eras. You probably know quite a bit more than I do on that subject.

Well, after a brief dip in league-wide Ortg from like 1998 to 2004, Ortg increased back to it's 80's levels starting in 2005 all the way up to now.

[bukowski81]

If there was no defense ANY player would score as many points as they want. A great offense is useless if you cant get stops just like a great defense is useless if you cant score. There are zero arguments to say one is more important than the other.

[knicksman]

If there was no defense ANY player would score as many points as they want. A great offense is useless if you cant get stops just like a great defense is useless if you cant score. There are zero arguments to say one is more important than the other.

both have the same impact but it is harder to learn offense than defense so offense is more important. Its what separates the great from the good players or the great teams vs good teams.

[CelticBalla32]

If there was no defense ANY player would score as many points as they want. A great offense is useless if you cant get stops just like a great defense is useless if you cant score. There are zero arguments to say one is more important than the other.

Exactly. If you want to win a championship, you have to get it done on both ends of the floor.

I will also say this about scoring - it is by far the most replaceable attribute in basketball. It is much more difficult to find a good defender than a guy who can get buckets. Role players on the wing are a dime a dozen for this reason. And damn-near every above average big man gets a max contract for this reason.

Obviously the best and most talented players in NBA history are guys that can dominate a scoreboard and take over a game. Nobody is disputing that. But if you don't think defense is equally important, you're kidding yourself. If you want to win, sure you have to score but you have to play quality team defense on a consistent basis.

Teams that are great offensively but can't defend don't win, like the Suns when they had Nash/Amare/Marion/etc. They won 50-60 games every year and could put the ball in the basket as well as anyone, but never made it to the Finals because they flat out couldn't get stops. Meanwhile, the 2007 Cavs were a quality defensive team but ran 90% of their offense through one player, so they got swept in the Finals.

You have to get it done on both ends to win.

[Prometheus]

As an individual player, you can make more of an impact on the game if you are a dominant scorer than just a dominant defender. But as a team, it is more important to have elite defense than elite offense.

All that needs to be said.

[Marchesk]

All that needs to be said.

But would you rather have Kevin Durant or a modern day version of Bill Russell? By that, I mean a guy doing today what Russell was doing back then, adjusted for pace, of course.

[SCdac]

why don't we see more "cherry picking" in the NBA? or basketball in general

[3ball]

But would you rather have Kevin Durant or a modern day version of Bill Russell? By that, I mean a guy doing today what Russell was doing back then, adjusted for pace, of course.

Trying to compare over eras is a useless exercise because it's impossible to consider everything.

It's better to assume that it all evens out in the end, because it does.

Like, if Elgin Baylor were playing today, instead of him going 1 on 5 and making a difficult shot like he used to do, today's coach would be able to get him a better look.... today's coach is more like "ok elgin, i need you to run off those two down-screens, then i need you to set a screen on the PG who will be curling off an elbow screen... then roll to the hoop and the PG will hit you with the pass and you should be wide open most of the time for a good look."

Today's extra strategy would actually get players from previous eras better looks than they had at the time they played.

[jstern]

I'm not too familiar with the OP, but reading the first page, is he an example of someone with like 7 alts responding to, agreeing with, and admiring himself?

[Prometheus]

But would you rather have Kevin Durant or a modern day version of Bill Russell? By that, I mean a guy doing today what Russell was doing back then, adjusted for pace, of course.

That's a tough one. But I see very specific flaws in Kevin Durant, and I am of the school of thought which believes Russell was an extremely fortunate competitor who was surrounded by elite talent and coaching for his entire career, and that his greatness is magnificently exaggerated because of his unprecedented fortune. It's not to say they aren't both great players, just that comparing the two does not discredit my original assertion.

[Prometheus]

I'm not too familiar with the OP, but reading the first page, is he an example of someone with like 7 alts responding to, agreeing with, and admiring himself?

Nah, it's simpler than that. He's just a fa[COLOR="Black"]ggot.[/COLOR]