# I think we should have traded Chandler.



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

We need some more offensive fire power. Seattle was really wanting Chandler and were offering Vlad and Flip. Tyson Chandler is becoming more likely to be a bust every game he plays. I have never seen a guy with such a bad offensive game. He is 7'3" but he will almost never throw down a dunk, he will like try to dunk and get blocked. You just can't have a guy that can't make these wide open looks. He isn't a good man on man defender, he is too weak to guard centers. Kevin Garnett is the only guy he has done a tremendous defensive performance against. He alters shots good, but he wants max money just for that. He probaly won't be a Bulls next year, he is not the type of guy that you resign for max, but he probaly can sap some poor team out of a max. He gives the other team the most offensive rebound chances, but he also has good rebounding numbers. He doesn't box out, so if he misses the rebound it is basically the other teams. While guys like Luol Deng, Eddy Curry, and Andres Nocioni box out, so if they miss the rebound their guy won't get it, and another Bulls is more likely to get it, and Andres and Luol mostly bring down the board themselves; Curry has bad timing on his rebounding. It doesn't make sense why we keep Tyson Chandler. His man will score more on him then Tyson will on him, so that is a negative. I wish we moved Tyson "overrated on Bulls Board Only" Chandler out of Chicago for Vladmir Radmanovic and Flip Murray. It just simply makes us a better team.


----------



## adarsh1 (May 28, 2003)

i think u need tyson to guard the shaq's , webber's, and other big men of the east


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

adarsh1 said:


> i think u need tyson to guard the shaq's , webber's, and other big men of the east


If we didn't resort to double teams, Shaq would go for Wilt's record on Tyson.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I'm happy that both Curry and Chandler are still here. It's a very good sign that Bulls plan to sign both. Just like Paxson and Reinsdorf have been talking about.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Chandler does lack an offensive game, but he brings rebounding, shotblocking and defense. A guy who is 7'2 and does those things is valuable in this league. I doubt he wants the max. The same arguments could be made about Curry, all he can do is score, he is a bad rebounder, defender, shotblocker, etc. He fills a role though, like Chandler. Neither guy deserves the max, not even close, but they are important to this team.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

A bust? What does that say about Seattle then? 

Wow, we'd really be ripping Seattle off seeing how Chandler is a bust and all. And he'd be worthy of some other teams max deal? Whose next up on the bust to max contract tour, Diop?

Seriously now, great idea. Lets trade away our best defender/game changer especially now that we're regularly giving up 100+ points. 

BTW, are you Paxson's little nephew or something?



> Seattle was really wanting Chandler and were offering Vlad and Flip.


Or are you just Chad Ford's little bro?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Chandler does lack an offensive game, but he brings rebounding, shotblocking and defense. A guy who is 7'2 and does those things is valuable in this league. I doubt he wants the max. The same arguments could be made about Curry, all he can do is score, he is a bad rebounder, defender, shotblocker, etc. He fills a role though, like Chandler. Neither guy deserves the max, not even close, but they are important to this team.


But Curry scores more then he gives up, Chandler doesn't. Defensive players are important in this league, but Offensive players are more important. If you find a guy like Tim Duncan or Shaq that are good at both, well that is what is the difference between Eddy being a superstar and not.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

LOL, Tyson is quickly establishing a reputation around the league as a top-flite rebounder, defender and shot-blocker.

One would have to be a pretty big Curry fan who is worried about Tyson taking Eddy's rebounds and money not to see how important Tyson is to the team. 

Ask Jeff Van Gundy. Ask Pat Riley. Ask Larry Brown. They will all tell you what a force and a difference-maker Tyson is.

Who was guarding Damon Jones on the last-second shot that Eddie Jones miraculously forced OT with? Tyson, that's why D Jones threw up an air-ball. It's not the first time I've seen Tyson on a guard and the end of a quarter, they can't shoot over him and he lays off so far they can't drive around him.

Tyson's going nowhere.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> But Curry scores more then he gives up, Chandler doesn't. Defensive players are important in this league, but Offensive players are more important. If you find a guy like Tim Duncan or Shaq that are good at both, well that is what is the difference between Eddy being a superstar and not.


Actually, we outscore the opposition when Chandler is on the floor. Other teams outscore us when Curry is on the floor.

http://www.82games.com/0405CHI.HTM

Just the facts.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I can't wait to see this board when it's Curry, not Chandler, who is gone.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Actually, we outscore the opposition when Chandler is on the floor. Other teams outscore us when Curry is on the floor.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0405CHI.HTM
> 
> Just the facts.


Curry outscores HIS guy. It doesn't matter that Kirk Hinrich his getting burnt by the starting shooting guard, same with Chris Duhon.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> But Curry scores more then he gives up, Chandler doesn't.


Maybe on his own man, but Chandler prevents more buckets from the oppositions other positions because of his help defense. Curry and Deng, as well as our backcourt players benefit on defense from having Chandler under the hoop. Chandler is guarding the premier scoring position in the NBA, so if his guy is only scoring one more point per game on average than Curry's man, he is doing his job, especially with the impact he has in keeping the oppositions other positions down on scoring too.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> But Curry scores more then he gives up, Chandler doesn't. Defensive players are important in this league, but Offensive players are more important. If you find a guy like Tim Duncan or Shaq that are good at both, well that is what is the difference between Eddy being a superstar and not.


 Hard to argue with this bullet proof logic. Especially when it's backed up by facts.

FYI, on offense per 100 possessions:

Eddy: 100.6
No Eddy: 103.5

Defense per 100:

Eddy: 103.4
No Eddy: 99.5


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

and Tyson's per 100, just for fun:

Offense
Tyson: 101.7
No Tyson: 102

Defense
Tyson: 101.3
No Tyson: 102.2


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:



> Actually, we outscore the opposition when Chandler is on the floor. Other teams outscore us when Curry is on the floor.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0405CHI.HTM
> 
> Just the facts.


Thank you very much for saving me the trouble.

But you forgot to mention we also grab 20% more offensive rebounds when Curry is on the bench while still grabbing the same number of defensive rebounds.

But I've noticed that Curry lovers don't care about facts, they have an excuse for everything Eddy does poorly. Don't forget the classics-

1- Eddy is hurrying up to get to the offensive end

2- Tyson is stealing Eddy's rebounds

3- Deng is stealing Eddy's rebounds 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville said:


> I can't wait to see this board when it's Curry, not Chandler, who is gone.


Why would we get rid of Curry rather then Chandler. How many powerforwards better then Chandler have come into the league since Chandler was drafted? How many centers better then Curry have been drafted since Curry was, one, Yao Ming. Curry is a rare find, and he wants to stay in Chicago, and wants to win.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Curry outscores HIS guy. It doesn't matter that Kirk Hinrich his getting burnt by the starting shooting guard, same with Chris Duhon.


So I guess when Eddy is off the floor, Kirk and Chris play better defense and get burnt less... 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: That's truly classic, nice one.

Curry also shoots a hell of a lot more than his guy, he rebounds a hell of a lot less than his guy, he blocks less shots than his guy, and he has a lot more turnovers than his guy.

You see, this isn't a fantasy league, there is more to it than just scoring.

But go ahead and make all the excuses for Eddy you want, there are stats to disprove every one of them, but if it makes you feel better...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Actually, we outscore the opposition when Chandler is on the floor. Other teams outscore us when Curry is on the floor.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0405CHI.HTM
> 
> Just the facts.





sp00k said:


> Eddy: 100.6
> No Eddy: 103.5
> 
> Defense per 100:
> ...





sp00k said:


> and Tyson's per 100, just for fun:
> 
> Offense
> Tyson: 101.7
> ...


Bingo.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Just shows that you guys aren't interested as a Bulls fan for everyone on the team. It seems an awful lot to me like you guys want Eddy Curry to fail, and the Bulls to fail, so you can blame the Bull's failure on Eddy Curry. It is pretty obvious, you guys turn a thread about Tyson Chandler into a hate thread about Eddy Curry.

I stated my point, offense is more valuable then defense, and I felt that Vladmir Radmanovic and Flip Murray are more valuable to the Bulls then Tyson Chandler is now. But those +/- stat, just shows that the Bulls guards get burnt by the opposing starting guards. That is obvious, anyone that watches the game knows that. Maybe that means we should trade say a point guard for a shooting guard, and not Chandler, maybe, remember though, Tyson Chandler plays against bench players more then starters. If Chandler and Curry workout good, but I think we need scoring at the powerforward position rather then almost none.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Just shows that you guys aren't interested as a Bulls fan for everyone on the team. It seems an awful lot to me like you guys want Eddy Curry to fail, and the Bulls to fail, so you can blame the Bull's failure on Eddy Curry. It is pretty obvious, you guys turn a thread about Tyson Chandler into a hate thread about Eddy Curry.
> 
> I stated my point, offense is more valuable then defense, and I felt that Vladmir Radmanovic and Flip Murray are more valuable to the Bulls then Tyson Chandler is now. But those +/- stat, just shows that the Bulls guards get burnt by the opposing starting guards. That is obvious, anyone that watches the game knows that. Maybe that means we should trade say a point guard for a shooting guard, and not Chandler, maybe, remember though, Tyson Chandler plays against bench players more then starters. If Chandler and Curry workout good, but I think we need scoring at the powerforward position rather then almost none.


 Oh please, you started spewing the hate on Tyson with claims that were completely unsubstantiated. We provided facts to shoot your argument down.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Just shows that you guys aren't interested as a Bulls fan for everyone on the team. It seems an awful lot to me like you guys want Eddy Curry to fail, and the Bulls to fail, so you can blame the Bull's failure on Eddy Curry. It is pretty obvious, you guys turn a thread about Tyson Chandler into a hate thread about Eddy Curry.


We don't hate Eddy, you don't understand simple English maybe? 

All we are pointing out are FACTS. Documentable FACTS. Explain them away all you want, they are 100% FACT. That's not our fault.

We LOVE the Bulls, the Bulls play better with Eddy on the bench, so we'd rather see Eddy on the bench.

YOU are not a Bulls fan, maybe? Even though it's a PROVEN fact that we play better when Eddy is on the bench, you still want to see Eddy play more minutes and get a long-term deal. Despite the fact that we are PROVEN to be better when he is on the bench.

Sorry we are honest, I want what's PROVEN to be better for the Bulls, and Eddy on the bench has PROVEN to be better for the Bulls.




I stated my point, offense is more valuable then defense, and I felt that Vladmir Radmanovic and Flip Murray are more valuable to the Bulls then Tyson Chandler is now. But those +/- stat, just shows that the Bulls guards get burnt by the opposing starting guards. That is obvious, anyone that watches the game knows that. Maybe that means we should trade say a point guard for a shooting guard, and not Chandler, maybe, remember though, Tyson Chandler plays against bench players more then starters. If Chandler and Curry workout good, but I think we need scoring at the powerforward position rather then almost none.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Just shows that you guys aren't interested as a Bulls fan for everyone on the team. It seems an awful lot to me like you guys want Eddy Curry to fail, and the Bulls to fail, so you can blame the Bull's failure on Eddy Curry. It is pretty obvious, you guys turn a thread about Tyson Chandler into a hate thread about Eddy Curry.


This thread just shows you aren't interested as a Bulls fan for everyone on the team. It seems an awfule lot to me like you want Tyson Chandler to fail, and the Bulls to fail, so you can blame the Bull's failure on Tyson Chandler. It is pretty obvious, you make a hate thread about Tyson Chandler and get offended when fellow fans point out that he is just valuable, if not more valuable, than Eddy Curry. 



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> But those +/- stat, just shows that the Bulls guards get burnt by the opposing starting guards. That is obvious, anyone that watches the game knows that.


Shooting guards score the least amount of points, on the worst field goal percentage against the Bulls. Hinrich isn't getting burnt, and it's absurd to suggest that our guards stop playing defense when Curry is in the game, then all of the sudden play great defense when he is out.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> But those +/- stat, just shows that the Bulls guards get burnt by the opposing starting guards. That is obvious, anyone that watches the game knows that.


Wrong again, my friend.

The FACTS show that the starting line-up OUTSCORES the opposition. So how could it be the fault of the starting guards, when Eddy is on the floor with Duhon, Hinrich, Deng, and AD/OH, we OUTSCORE our opponents.

Eddy is a + when he is out there with the starting guards.

What, again, is obvious?

You keep claiming stuff that isn't true, do you have ANY Eddy excuses that ARE TRUE? Just curious.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

bullsville said:


> YOU are not a Bulls fan, maybe? Even though it's a PROVEN fact that we play better when Eddy is on the bench, you still want to see Eddy play more minutes and get a long-term deal. Despite the fact that we are PROVEN to be better when he is on the bench.


Bingo. Same logic. We should really quit the "you aren't a Bulls fan if you don't agree that player x is more valuable than player y" type talk, it's nonsense really.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> I stated my point, offense is more valuable then defense, and I felt that Vladmir Radmanovic and Flip Murray are more valuable to the Bulls then Tyson Chandler is now. <b>But those +/- stat, just shows that the Bulls guards get burnt by the opposing starting guards. That is obvious, anyone that watches the game knows that.</b> Maybe that means we should trade say a point guard for a shooting guard, and not Chandler, maybe, remember though, Tyson Chandler plays against bench players more then starters. If Chandler and Curry workout good, but I think we need scoring at the powerforward position rather then almost none.


Defense numbers:

Kirk: 101.5
No Kirk: 102.5

Duhon: 101.2
No Duhon: 102.2

Gordon: 101.4
No Gordon: 102

Once again, numbers don't support your claim. Are opposing guards just blowing by all of our guards and not just our starting backcourt?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Our guards pick up the defense when Curry is on the bench, because they are guarding backup guards then, you see a difference.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

I dont think chandler/curry will signed for the max. even when they do sign for something like 10mil a year. with the new CBA, the max lenght for a contract is like 4-5 years. YOUNG BIG men will always be wanted in this league. so it's not hard to trade either curry or chandler if they don't pan out. the extra 2-3 years in the contract lenght just make them much much more tradeable


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> We need some more offensive fire power. Seattle was really wanting Chandler and were offering Vlad and Flip. Tyson Chandler is becoming more likely to be a bust every game he plays. I have never seen a guy with such a bad offensive game. He is 7'3" but he will almost never throw down a dunk, he will like try to dunk and get blocked. You just can't have a guy that can't make these wide open looks. He isn't a good man on man defender, he is too weak to guard centers. Kevin Garnett is the only guy he has done a tremendous defensive performance against. He alters shots good, but he wants max money just for that. He probaly won't be a Bulls next year, he is not the type of guy that you resign for max, but he probaly can sap some poor team out of a max. He gives the other team the most offensive rebound chances, but he also has good rebounding numbers. He doesn't box out, so if he misses the rebound it is basically the other teams. While guys like Luol Deng, Eddy Curry, and Andres Nocioni box out, so if they miss the rebound their guy won't get it, and another Bulls is more likely to get it, and Andres and Luol mostly bring down the board themselves; Curry has bad timing on his rebounding. It doesn't make sense why we keep Tyson Chandler. His man will score more on him then Tyson will on him, so that is a negative. I wish we moved Tyson "overrated on Bulls Board Only" Chandler out of Chicago for Vladmir Radmanovic and Flip Murray. It just simply makes us a better team.


I think we would really regret it if we traded Chandler. I don't think he's the player he's going to be yet, and while I don't see him improving much offensively I definitely see him becoming much more consitent, stronger, and savvy. I also think Tyson loves being a Bull, another reason why we need him now.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

I want to see a link for the Seattle rumors......


Or are you just making things up?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Just a note, our starting lineup is our most productive, which includes Eddy Curry.

Our worst 5 man units are these.

Hinrich-Gordon-Nocioni-Chandler-Curry

Hinrich, Nocioni, and Chandler are offensive liabilities. 

The best lineup is 

Hinrich, Duhon, Deng, Davis, Curry

I'll explain this, the Bulls are at their best when they are going through the post to Eddy constantly, they are at their worst when they are just burning the shotclok and chucking crap. The best lineup, is used at the start of halves, when we go to Curry constantly. The 2nd linuep, is usually the one we see when we abandon Eddy in the post, and watch Hinrich and Duhon miss shot after shot. I am not going to blame Chandler for bad offense, because at least he isn't missing shots, so even though he isn't helping the team on offense, he isn't hurting them like others. A change is in need though, and I like the possibilities that Vlad and Flip could have done for us. Now that we didn't trade, we need a lineup change. I suggest, Ben, Deng, Noc, Chandler, Curry. =That gives us 3 scorers with 3 lockdown defenders. That is a perfect starting lineup, we need to get up ahead early, and I have a feeling that this lineup will work good.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Vintage said:


> I want to see a link for the Seattle rumors......
> 
> 
> Or are you just making things up?


http://www.tsn.ca/nba/news_story.asp?ID=115883&hubName=nba


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Just a note, our starting lineup is our most productive, which includes Eddy Curry.
> 
> Our worst 5 man units are these.
> 
> ...



Link for the Seattle rumors, please.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Sonics might be willing to move the expiring contracts of C Vitaly Potapenko and SF Ronald Murray, with Toronto Raptors SF Eric Williams mentioned as the kind of player they might like in return. A swap of Vladimir Radmanovic to the Bulls for PF/C Tyson Chandler is also a longshot possibility.


Longshot possibility.

Hmmmm.....sounds like it was in heavy discussions...


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> *Just a note, our starting lineup is our most productive, which includes Eddy Curry.*
> 
> Our worst 5 man units are these.
> 
> ...


No, it's not. It has the highest *total*, at +79, but our most frequent starting 5 (CD, KH, LD, AD and ED) has played 328 minutes, which is 2 1/2 times more minutes than any other unit. With OH in for AD, it's +1 for 77 minutes.

Between them, our starters are +80 in 405 minutes on the floor. That's a whooping +0.198 pts per minute. Wow.

Hinrich-Gordon-Nocioni-Davis-Chandler is +17 in 47 minutes. +.362 pts per minute.

Duhon-Gordon-Nocioni-Davis-Chandler is +18 in 37 minutes. +.486 pts per minute.

Duhon-Hinrich-Deng-Davis-Chandler is +19 in 41 minutes. +.463 pts per minute.

How, exactly, is the starting line-up the most productive again? There are several more line-ups that are more productive, I'm sorry, that's just the facts.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville said:


> No, it's not. It has the highest *total*, at +79, but our most frequent starting 5 (CD, KH, LD, AD and ED) has played 328 minutes, which is 2 1/2 times more minutes than any other unit. With OH in for AD, it's +1 for 77 minutes.
> 
> Between them, our starters are +80 in 405 minutes on the floor. That's a whooping +0.198 pts per minute. Wow.
> 
> ...



That starting lineup does their damage against the other teams STARTERS, those lineups do their damage against the other teams BENCH.


----------



## qwerty (Oct 26, 2004)

Doesn't babyblueslugga think curry is equal to ben wallace defensively? I think that says it all. He just does not appreciate very good defensive players.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

~~~ said:


> Doesn't babyblueslugga think curry is equal to ben wallace defensively? I think that says it all. He just does not appreciate very good defensive players.


True say.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

~~~ said:


> Doesn't babyblueslugga think curry is equal to ben wallace defensively? I think that says it all. He just does not appreciate very good defensive players.


Doesn't ~~~ think that Eddy curry is equal to a bag of garbage defensively. I think my statement is more tru then your view.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

BabyBlue, this post and the ones following it are maybe the most delusional and poorly supported ones I've seen.




BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> We need some more offensive fire power.


Debatable, but I'm sure nobody would argue with us scoring more points. Some might argue though that we've got the tools we need now and we just need to distribute minutes a little differently. Considering how well we're playing lately, though, I think it's not a certainty that we need more firepower.



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Seattle was really wanting Chandler and were offering Vlad and Flip.


You did post a link that said an offer of only Vlad (not Vlad & Flip) was possible. It did not say that Seattle actually made this offer. It only said that the trade was a "longshot possibility." Nice support for your position.



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Tyson Chandler is becoming more likely to be a bust every game he plays.


Oh yeah, how so? By becoming an ever-improving defender, rebounder, and shot blocker?



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> I have never seen a guy with such a bad offensive game.


I have seen many, many playeres with equally bad or worse offensive games. Many seven footers who can barely tie their own shoes make it into the NBA, let alone shoot, dribble, and have any discernable post moves. Tyson's not pretty, but he's hardly the worst.



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> He is 7'3"


No, he isn't.



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> but he will almost never throw down a dunk,


Really, I seem to see him dunk quite frequently.



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> he will like try to dunk and get blocked.


It's not so much getting blocked. Both Tyson and Eddy have a huge problem with bringing the ball down too low after they get it, which causes them to be stripped. This is Big Man School 101 and I've always found it super frustrating that neither of them have figured it out.



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> You just can't have a guy that can't make these wide open looks.


Wide open looks? Wait, I thought we were talking about dunking and getting blocked, which of course can't happen with a wide open look. I'm confused. If we're talking about jump shooting with wide open looks, I'd say Tyson for the first time this season seems to have developed a bit of a mid-range jumper, which makes me very happy.



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> He isn't a good man on man defender,


Yes, he is. Not the greatest ever, but better than average, IMO.



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> he is too weak to guard centers.


Well, too weak to guard Shaq, maybe, but not too weak to guard a lot of centers. Also, this shouldn't really matter, as he plays PF, so you're comparing apples to oranges. If you have a problem with him getting some minutes at the 5 as he does, maybe what you really want is a better backup center than Jared Reiner. (I'm sorry, that's blashphemy. Reiner rules! Sorry. :wink: )



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Kevin Garnett is the only guy he has done a tremendous defensive performance against.


I thought he's done pretty well against Dirk, too. I didn't realize though that not having a "tremendous" performance was a reason to get rid of him. Clearly, Eddy has tremendous defensive performances all the time so we must be spoiled.  



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> He alters shots good,


Yes, he does do that _well._ 



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> but he wants max money just for that.


This is completely unfounded and irresponsible. He wants the max???? I've never heard Tyson, his agent, or a journalist of any repute in recent history suggest that this is the case. Have you and Tyson been chatting on the phone lately and you know something we don't?



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> He probaly won't be a Bulls next year,


Really? Is that because:
1. We are getting a new GM this summer that I didn't know about?
2. Paxsons repeated recent statements about resigning Eddy and Tyson are lies?



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> he is not the type of guy that you resign for max,


Agreed. 



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> but he probaly can sap some poor team out of a max.


Definitely not in agreement here. Which team is it that you foresee offering Tyson the max? Again, I don't think there has been really any serious talk of this being a possibility. Nice offers? Yes. Max? No.



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> He gives the other team the most offensive rebound chances, but he also has good rebounding numbers. He doesn't box out, so if he misses the rebound it is basically the other teams. While guys like Luol Deng, Eddy Curry, and Andres Nocioni box out, so if they miss the rebound their guy won't get it, and another Bulls is more likely to get it, and Andres and Luol mostly bring down the board themselves;


Ok, BabyBlue, this is is where you really, really get off-base. You are going to try to turn rebounding into something in the negative column for Tyson? Get real. Yeah, Eddy boxes out and even though he can't pull down a board to save his life, he is actually helping his team much more than Tyson. Ugh. Unreal. Tyson is a rebounding machine and that is a huge plus for him. To suggest otherwise is laughable.



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Curry has bad timing on his rebounding.


Agreed, sort of. Eddy doesn't seem to have a natural nose for the ball. I sort of believe though that to have bad timing, you must actually try in the first place. You've got to actually jump to mistime your jump, if you get my drift.



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> It doesn't make sense why we keep Tyson Chandler. His man will score more on him then Tyson will on him, so that is a negative.


Ben Wallace? This reasoning doesn't hold up. Dennis Rodman? Come on, get real.



BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> I wish we moved Tyson "overrated on Bulls Board Only" Chandler out of Chicago for Vladmir Radmanovic and Flip Murray. It just simply makes us a better team.


Wishing doesn't make it true. I wish we could have moved Frank Williams for KG, but it doesn't make it an actual possibility. There is no indication that Tyson would have gotten you Vlad and Flip. Lots of made up moves make us a better team. Let's try to stick to real-world possibilities, rather than a land of make-believe.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Baby Blue, I hate to tell you this but Murray was never in the package being talked about. As the poster above me said, the article said it was a long shot.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

I didn't even read this thread because I don't feel like wasting time, but if you take away Tyson Chandler you take away the anchor to our defense. 

Without him you will see so many players drive in on our perimeter guys, and opponent scoring in the paint will increase. Do you think Curry can do defensively what Tyson does? Do you think he could rebound like Tyson does? Do you think he would have had the instincts to save the ball and throw it to Nocioni against the Knicks with the end of the game comin..... Cuz if you do, he can't and he wouldn't have.

Tyson has put the defensive clamp on many players such as Dirk, Garnett, etc.... he's our defensive intimidation in the paint with his ability to block shots.

You get rid of him, and all the shots Ben Gordon hits in the 4th quarter are meaningless.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Last I saw, Tyson was leading the NBA in 4th quarter rebounds and blocks...


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Last I saw, Tyson was leading the NBA in 4th quarter rebounds and blocks...


Are you serious? Link?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Electric Slim said:


> Are you serious? Link?


Sorry, no link. I heard or read that somewhere, it's been a few weeks and may not even be true anymore.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Isn't Vladmir Radmanovic the exact type of player that we want in the post next to Eddy. I would much rather keep Chandler and look to the offseason. Vladmir Radmanovic is a restricted free agent, the MLE may be enough to haul down Vlad, maybe not, but Vladmir is a perfect compliment to Curry on offense. He is the big man that can step away and make a jumpshot. Tyson Chandler is a hard guy to trade, because frankly we really do not know how good of a rebounder Eddy Curry is. We know he boxes out. He has 12 rebounds in a game Tyson missed, but would he be able to bring down 10 a game consistently knowing that he can't be a passive rebounder without Tyson there? We can hopefully get Vlad for the MLE, screw Duhon, don't let the door hit yourself on the way out, or sign back with us for the MLE. If we can get Vladmir Radmanovic this offseason that would be huge.

Curry-Chandler (defensive big men lineup) Curry-Vlad (offensive bigman lineup) Davis-Chandler (bench big men lineup)

If the Bulls continue to struggle as they have, I hoped either Kirk/Duhon is kicked out of the starting lineup in favor of Ben Gordon and Davis/Harrington whoever is starting now days gets kicked out for Chandler, to see this teams full action with the so called best pieces all playing together.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Paxson said he listened to offers but felt in the end since the team is young, haven't had much experience together, and are already good, and have great chemistry that it would be foolish to make a move.

*case closed*


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Chandler is our closer on defense, he's going nowhere unless someone just makes him an outrageous offer. Even then, I think Pax matches and trades him if he isn't worth the money.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I know this might be hard to believe, but it sounds like Curry might be getting less PT because of his poor defense (from a new story on the Trib. site)



> If that's the case, the recent slippage on defense must be corrected. *Curry has been so ineffective that he's having trouble staying on the floor. The coaching staff is contemplating various combinations without him.*
> 
> "We're not playing hard enough," coach Scott Skiles said. "We don't have the same energy. We're not being conscientious enough. We're not helping each other. Our basket protection is poor. Other than that, we're phenomenal."


Full Article 

Spin away, BBS.


----------



## DHarris34Phan (Oct 28, 2004)

BabyBlue, I'm not even a Bulls fan and I'll tell you that Tyson Chandler is more important to this team than Eddy Curry... I have no idea why you would bash a HARD WORKING, defensive minded player in Tyson Chandler. From an outsiders view, Tyson Chandler is the anti-Eddy Curry, and if I were a Bulls fan I would much rather have a Tyson Chandler around than Eddy Curry.

How can you honestly call yourself the ultimate Bulls Fan with views like this? Any respectable Bulls fan, which there are alot on this site, would totally disagree with everything that you have said.

Tyson Chandler is going to be great.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

I hate posters who just seem to appear to nitpick and divide Bulls fans. It gets old first Crawford now Curry. Wake up people we are winning, this is so retarded.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

If we don't win more than 3 more games for the rest of the season, we will have exceeded many preseason predictions for this team. (and they will win many more than 3 games, and are likely to make the playoffs -- which very few people expected this year). Let the team continue to develop its core and address needs this offseason and next.

Chandler and Curry should DEFINITELY both be back. As should Kirk, Ben, Noc and Duhon.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

it's my guess that BBS thinks tyson chandler is standing "in the way" of eddy becoming a "superstar", or somehow the guards or SKILES! are preventing this from happening, when we all know the only person who has ever been in eddy's way is eddy.



:yes:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> it's my guess that BBS thinks tyson chandler is standing "in the way" of eddy becoming a "superstar", or somehow the guards or SKILES! are preventing this from happening, when we all know the only person who has ever been in eddy's way is eddy.
> 
> 
> 
> :yes:


And Eddy is one of the few people large enough to literally get in his own way...



Miz, you are absolutely right. Nobody is holding EC back. He is vastly improved and has a long way to go with many aspects of his game, but credit where do for thhte good he has accomplished, and here's hoping he continues to work on his weaknesses. THAT and only THAT will make Eddy an All-Star type player. Work on weaknesses, while continuing to hone strengths. See Jermaine O'Neal, for a prime example.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Sorry, no link. I heard or read that somewhere, it's been a few weeks and may not even be true anymore.


*Fourth Quarter Stars*

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/columnist/dupree/2005-01-24-scorers-table_x.htm

Player, team....................... 4th quarter rebound avg.

Tyson Chandler, Chicago..... 3.29
Tim Duncan, San Antonio.....3.25
Emeka Okafor, Charlotte.......3.21
Kevin Garnett, Minnesota..... 3.08
Shaquille O'Neal, Miami....... 2.78



> Chandler leads all NBA players in fourth-quarter rebounds (3.29 a game) and blocked shots (0.82). With his long arms, angular 7-1, 235-pound frame and athleticism, he's fast becoming a defensive star.


----------



## Bulls4Ever (May 6, 2003)

Trade Chandler??? lol!!!

For who??? Radmanovic and Flip Murray??? Your proposal is ridiculous!!!
Chandler can guard guys like Shaq or other big men int the NBA, but Radmanovic can't. And Flip is the same guy as Crawford, so don't trade Chandler...or maybe for a guy and only one, Sam Dalembert.

Maybe Sixers can trade Dalembert for Chandler + an other one.
I think it will be a more imporant move for us.

Remember that: for me with some experience in the leageue (so in 3or4 years), Tyson can become the new Big Ben...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Bulls4Ever said:


> Trade Chandler??? lol!!!
> 
> For who??? Radmanovic and Flip Murray??? Your proposal is ridiculous!!!
> Chandler can guard guys like Shaq or other big men int the NBA, but Radmanovic can't. And Flip is the same guy as Crawford, so don't trade Chandler...or maybe for a guy and only one, Sam Dalembert.
> ...


Tyson Chandler cannot guard Shaq, he is too weak. He can guard guys like KG or Dirk, but can't guard guys like Shaq, Tim Duncan, and Igauskus (no one can on our team :no: ). 

I hate the [strike]idiots[/strike] in this board that think there is an alternative motive, that the key to trading Chandler is to make Curry the star. Wouldn't bringing in 2 offensive players that would be taking touches away from Curry be the opposite, pure ignorance.

Samuel Dalembert is overrated. I'd take Vlad or Tyson over him.

and is HARDWORKING such a great quality. It should be necassary. Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Andres Nocioni, Antonio Davis, Eddy Curry, and others on our team all work hard, it should be the norm, not something special.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> and is HARDWORKING such a great quality. It should be necassary. Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Andres Nocioni, Antonio Davis, Eddy Curry, and others on our team all work hard, *it should be the norm, not something special.*


Unfortunately that's not exactly the reality.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> and is HARDWORKING such a great quality. It should be necassary. Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Andres Nocioni, Antonio Davis, *Eddy Curry*, and others on our team all work hard, it should be the norm, not something special.


Working hard for three months of your life doesn't make you a hard worker.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

CiMa said:


> Working hard for three months of your life doesn't make you a hard worker.


but slacking off during the summer when you should have been hititng the weights does? Curry and Chandler are in the same boat when it comes to this. This is the first offseason that they've done what they were supposed to be doing, and because of it the Bulls are reaping the benefits.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> *Fourth Quarter Stars*
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/columnist/dupree/2005-01-24-scorers-table_x.htm
> 
> ...


Thank you very much, that's not where I saw it but a link is always good for people who don't know me well enough to know that I don't ever make up BS.

Thanks again.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Tyson Chandler cannot guard Shaq, he is too weak. He can guard guys like KG or Dirk, but can't guard guys like Shaq, Tim Duncan, and Igauskus (no one can on our team :no: ).


Ummm, nobody in the league can guard Shaq. Chandler does as good a job as anyone in the league guarding Duncan and Z. At least most people who follow the league will tell you that.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> but slacking off during the summer when you should have been hititng the weights does? Curry and Chandler are in the same boat when it comes to this. This is the first offseason that they've done what they were supposed to be doing, and because of it the Bulls are reaping the benefits.


Wait first you say that Chandler slacked off during the summer, then you say this is the first time BOTH of them (which includes Chandler) did what they're supposed to do. Which is it?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

BBS, do you still feel we should have traded Chandler?


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

41 people say no


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

BBS goes silent as Tyson illustrates what it is to be the Bulls defensive game changer and closer. 

Ben's 3 was big, but Chandler won this game in the last couple of minutes tonight. What an impact...and only in what - 14 minutes?


----------



## DaBullz4Sho (Oct 12, 2002)

BBS: 

I agree with you that offense is very important...But moving tyson, arguably our best defender. Definitly our best post defender for another scorer may seem like it will help us in the long run with our problems scoring at times. But you can load up a team with as many scorers as you want, and at the end of the day you have to stop the other guys to win.. It's no secret in the game of basketball...hence the many quotes coined about "d" ie: "Defense wins championships". I agree we could use another scorer...but losing our best post defender and rebounder and a guy who is a major spark for us is the wrong bargaining chip.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Man, I still can't believe he had the audacity to criticize Chandler for defense and rebounding when he is in  with Eddy Curry who has none of that and is somewhat streaky on offense.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz4Sho said:


> BBS:
> 
> I agree with you that offense is very important...But moving tyson, arguably our best defender. Definitly our best post defender for another scorer may seem like it will help us in the long run with our problems scoring at times. But you can load up a team with as many scorers as you want, and at the end of the day you have to stop the other guys to win.. It's no secret in the game of basketball...hence the many quotes coined about "d" ie: "Defense wins championships". I agree we could use another scorer...but losing our best post defender and rebounder and a guy who is a major spark for us is the wrong bargaining chip.


You have to score at least one point to win a game.

And I think it's dubious, at best, that defense does win championships.


----------



## DaBullz4Sho (Oct 12, 2002)

Future-
"Man, I still can't believe he had the audacity to criticize Chandler for defense and rebounding when he is in with Eddy Curry who has none of that and is somewhat streaky on offense."



the thing that really upset me with eddy last night was when we were in zone and eddy wound up covering the perimiter... one of the bobcat players (cant remember which one off the top of my head) got the pass took his good 'ol time and eddy just stood there and watched, not taking even ONE step toward him NOT PUTTING ONE HAND UP!...BBS said eddy scores more points than he gives up...I am beginning to seriously doubt that...he may never be very skilled defensively...but please, Eddy, make some kind of effort :frenchy:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> You have to score at least one point to win a game.
> 
> And I think it's dubious, at best, that defense does win championships.


The data doesn't really suggest its true, but it does show that while offense may be slightly more important in the regular season, defense may be slightly more important during the playoffs.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> You have to score at least one point to win a game.


And you have to allow at least one point to lose a game.



> And I think it's dubious, at best, that defense does win championships.


I'm quite sure that the history of professional sports in the world would strongly suggest otherwise.

And any Bulls fan should be able to attest to this- as great as MJ was, the Bulls won 6 championships on the strength of their defense.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1895306#post1895306



Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Nobody ever brings up the fact that the last two Shaq/Kobe championship teams were great offensively, but mediocre to good defensively. In both seasons, they ranked second in points scored per 100 possessions. But they ranked 7th and 21st in the two seasons in points given up per 100 possessions.
> 
> They were, however, the best defensive team in the league during the first championship season. But then I think Shaq got too big to cover the pick-and-roll effectively and from that point forward the Lakers were a great offensive team that got by with so-so defense.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz, do you know what the Lakers' defensive statistics were in the playoffs? Dan's analysis is based on the regular season; i.e. the part of the season the Lakers were notorious for sloughing off in. For that reason, it is a suspect analysis.

I suspect an analysis of what the Lakers did defensively *in the playoffs* would show that they defended very well when they were thinking about getting fitted for rings.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> DaBullz, do you know what the Lakers' defensive statistics were in the playoffs? Dan's analysis is based on the regular season; i.e. the part of the season the Lakers were notorious for sloughing off in. For that reason, it is a suspect analysis.
> 
> I suspect an analysis of what the Lakers did defensively *in the playoffs* would show that they defended very well when they were thinking about getting fitted for rings.


You can argue with Dan about his analysis.

Mine is that the Bulls won because Jordan scored a ton, Pippen helped a real lot, and they had role players like Kukoc, Kerr and Paxson and Hodges who were there for nothing but offense.

In fact, these current Bulls are winning games because of Gordon's late game scoring, though last night it was Tyson's FREE THROWS that won it for us.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> You can argue with Dan about his analysis.
> 
> Mine is that the Bulls won because Jordan scored a ton, Pippen helped a real lot, and they had role players like Kukoc, Kerr and Paxson and Hodges who were there for nothing but offense.
> 
> In fact, these current Bulls are winning games because of Gordon's late game scoring, though last night it was Tyson's FREE THROWS that won it for us.


I'm not trying to argue with anyone - this time. You adopted his post, so I asked you a question about it. I'm trying to be more friendly around here. 

And for what its worth, your analysis of the Bulls wins suggests that what precedes the final 3 minutes of a game is of no import to the outcome. 

No game is won "because of" the last play or the last 3 minutes of action. It is won with the inclusion of those things, but not to the exclusion of everything else. The Bulls have the best opponents field goal % in the league - a stat that is compiled on all shots taken in *every quarter*. Were it not for that exceptional defense, the games wouldn't be close enough to win in the last 2 minutes of play. It all must be considered collectively.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm not trying to argue with anyone - this time. You adopted his post, so I asked you a question about it. I'm trying to be more friendly around here.
> 
> And for what its worth, your analysis of the Bulls wins suggests that what precedes the final 3 minutes of a game is of no import to the outcome.
> 
> No game is won "because of" the last play or the last 3 minutes of action. It is won with the inclusion of those things, but not to the exclusion of everything else. The Bulls have the best opponents field goal % in the league - a stat that is compiled on all shots taken in *every quarter*. Were it not for that exceptional defense, the games wouldn't be close enough to win in the last 2 minutes of play. It all must be considered collectively.


Basketball is basketball, whether it's a playoff game or regular season on; the rules are 2 points for a basket, 3 points for outside the 3pt line, you aren't allowed to take more than 1.5 steps with the ball, and so on.

Phoenix is 43-13, best in the league. They're about in the middle of the pack in terms of oppoents' FG% while #1 in terms of teams' FG% on offense.

I'm waiting for these numbers that exist that proves defense wins championships. All that's been provided here is numbers showing the opposite.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

It's easy to point to one team and say, "well there ya go". Yes, the Lakers were a great offensive team. For that matter, so were the St. Louis Rams. 

As a rule though, teams raise their level of intensity on the defensive end of the floor in the playoffs and I believe it is for this reason that we get "defense wins Championships". In general, NBA players are ALWAYS trying to score, but that cannot be said about ALWAYS trying to play defense. 

In the playoffs you think big stops, bruising play. On offense you think clutch shots not necessarily 100+ pt games. 

Why else is everybody anticipating seeing how the Suns do in this years playoffs with their potent small ball offense?

While you could look at the numbers to determine who gets to the playoffs and make a correlation as to the success of defensive minded teams, wouldn't a more fair analysis of whether or not defense wins be to analyze the playoff numbers?



> The answer, in my opinion, is that most people believe defense is less tied to talent than offense. A bunch of hard-working, smart players may not be able to produce a league average offense, but, with the right coach, they can produce an average defense.
> 
> ...
> 
> In summary, virtually all the available evidence suggests that even if offense doesn’t win championships, it’s much more effective at winning regular-season games, which is what most teams are primarily concerned with.


Moving Beyond "Defense Wins Championships"
http://www.hoopsworld.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi?archive=39&num=6237


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

OK

Last season, the Lakers led all playoff teams in FG% and were 10th (out of 16) on the defensive end. Appeared in the finals, lost, IMO, due to Malone being unable to play due to injury. I also think most of the western playoff teams would have best Detroit in the finals...

If you have some analysis of playoff stats, feel free to post them.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Basketball is basketball, whether it's a playoff game or regular season on; the rules are 2 points for a basket, 3 points for outside the 3pt line, you aren't allowed to take more than 1.5 steps with the ball, and so on.
> 
> Phoenix is 43-13, best in the league. They're about in the middle of the pack in terms of oppoents' FG% while #1 in terms of teams' FG% on offense.
> 
> I'm waiting for these numbers that exist that proves defense wins championships. All that's been provided here is numbers showing the opposite.


I don't have any numbers. I'd have to go back and, game by game, break down the defensive playoff statistics of the past NBA champions - something I'm not going to do. But what numbers do you have proving the "opposite"? One post from Dan using an inadequate statistical analysis (no offense Dan, I just think the way a team plays defense in the actual playoffs is more relevant to a "defense wins championships" debate) about 1 Championship team in the history of the whole leage?

What I know is that the Spurs, the Bulls, the Pistons, the Celtics, the Rockets, and yes, even the Lakers were very good defensive teams - especially in the post-season. Other than the Pistons, they were also good offensive teams as well. But I can't think of one single team constructed like the recent Mavs or the current Suns/Sonics that won a Championship. Not one. 

Thats why it will be so interesting to see what the Suns do in the Playoffs this year. My bet is they don't see action past the second round.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't have any numbers.


The rest of your post was nice, but that's the gist of it.

Regards


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> OK
> 
> Last season, the Lakers led all playoff teams in FG% and were 10th (out of 16) on the defensive end. Appeared in the finals, lost, IMO, due to Malone being unable to play due to injury. I also think most of the western playoff teams would have best Detroit in the finals...
> 
> If you have some analysis of playoff stats, feel free to post them.


OK - Per the playoffs, Detroit was #2 in opponents FG % and #2 in Rebounding %. 

Detroit was 10th (out of 16) in playoff teams in FG%.

:laugh:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The rest of your post was nice, but that's the gist of it.
> 
> Regards


Well, the very next sentence I wrote is particularly important in understanding the sentence you highlighted, but OK. 

Perhaps you would like to go back and do the painstaking analysis of doing a playoffs only statistical analysis of past NBA champs to prove defense *wasn't* the key?

I don't think either one of us wants to undertake that chore. 

Regardless, you've been wrong about everything else this season - easily quantifiable things too - no reason to believe this is any different.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> OK - Per the playoffs, Detroit was #2 in opponents FG % and #2 in Rebounding %.
> 
> Detroit was 10th (out of 16) in playoff teams in FG%.
> 
> :laugh:


Awesome. Thanks Johnston797. How did you compile those stats?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

OK - Per the 2003 playoffs, the champs, Spurs were #2 in opponents FG % and the Spurs were 9th (out of 16) in playoff teams in FG%.

So two straight years, Defense was more important than scoring....


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> OK - Per the playoffs, Detroit was #2 in opponents FG % and #2 in Rebounding %.
> 
> Detroit was 10th (out of 16) in playoff teams in FG%.
> 
> :laugh:


I know. Must have taken you hours to come up with some data. 

:laugh:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...003&seasontype=3&avg=pg&order=false&split=999

We should all provide links more often, I guess.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...003&seasontype=3&avg=pg&order=false&split=999
> 
> We should all provide links more often, I guess.


Thanks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

"Defense wins championships" is a saying, like "when the going gets tough, the tough get going."


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> "Defense wins championships" is a saying, like "when the going gets tough, the tough get going."


Not based on Johnston797's research.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Not based on Johnston797's research.


Two seasons? I'm impressed.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Two seasons? I'm impressed.


Last I checked, 2 is more than 0 statboy.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> "Defense wins championships" is a saying, like "when the going gets tough, the tough get going."


Or like "It's not a beer belly; it's a fuel tank for a sex machine." ?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Last I checked, 2 is more than 0 statboy.


Last time I checked, 1 is more than your zero.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Last time I checked, 1 is more than your zero.


I guess I don't follow. Johnston's stats support exactly what I was saying to be the case and completely undercuts your typically wrong argument.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

In 2002, the Lakers were 6th in defensive FG%, tied for 4th in offensive FG%.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...002&seasontype=3&avg=pg&order=false&split=999

In 2001, the Lakers were 2nd in defensive FG%, 2nd in offensive FG%.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...n=2001&seasontype=3&avg=pg&order=true&split=0

That's as far back as the stats go on ESPN, but that's 4 out of 4. The worst defense was the Lakers in 2001, and they still were 6 out of 16 teams.

I'm still looking for one offensive juggernaut that won a championship without playing defense in the playoffs.

Somebody mentioned the Rams earlier in this thread... they had a great offense, but the year they actually *won* the Super Bowl it was because their *defense* held Tampa to 6 in the NFC Championship Game and Tennessee to 16 in the Super Bowl.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> In 2002, the Lakers were 6th in defensive FG%, tied for 4th in offensive FG%.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...002&seasontype=3&avg=pg&order=false&split=999
> 
> ...


Just because a team plays great offense doesn't mean it plays no defense.

If I turn this around on you, then any team that ranks in the top 3-5 offensive FG% has won it (purely, you imply) on offense.

So both those Lakers teams did it on offense, eh?

EDIT: The one who called me "stat boy" is the one who suggested defensive FG% is the measure of defense. It's A measure, but not exactly the one I'd use to make his argument. Dan uses points per 100 posessions, I do believe, which makes a lot more sense to me, because a .400 FG% team might shoot 200 shots in a game while a .500 FG% team might shoot 100 shots in the game. Guess who wins?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

http://www.basketball-reference.com...&stat=FGP&sort=asc&limit=25&submit=View+Teams

Can show you the regular season team stats. I went through and looked at the champ and runner up's rankings for the last twenty championships.

The average champion has an Opp FG% rank of 5.4 and Own FG% rank of 6.4.
The average runner up has an Opp FG% rank of 7.2 and Own FG% rank of 8.0.

Over only the last 10 years in the survey (95-04), the numbers are:

The average champion has an Opp FG% rank of 4.0 and Own FG% rank of 7.6.
The average runner up has an Opp FG% rank of 7.1 and Own FG% rank of 7.8.

The average champion is a team that ranks higher on defense than on offense. It's offense appears very similarly ranked, on average, to the runner up. What distinguishes the two is defense.

For both champs and runner ups, they are on average ranked higher on defense than on offense.

Over the first 10 years in the survery (84-94) this is less true

The average champion has an Opp FG% rank of 6.6 and Own FG% rank of 5.2.
The average runner up has an Opp FG% rank of 7.2 and Own FG% rank of 8.2.

Championship teams averaged higher overall ranks, but they averaged higher offensive ranks than defensive ranks. Runner ups were slightly better defensive teams than offensive teams, on average.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Just because a team plays great offense doesn't mean it plays no defense.
> 
> If I turn this around on you, then any team that ranks in the top 3-5 offensive FG% has won it (purely, you imply) on offense.
> 
> ...


I "suggested" it? Is that DaBullz-speak for "Ron didn't actually say that opponent's field goal % is the only measure of team defense" but I'm going to impute the statement to him anyway? :laugh: 

Dan's stat makes sense to me too. Now, why don't you apply it to those championship teams and see if it supports your theory and undercuts Johnston's stats? Its fun to ask, because I know you won't do it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> http://www.basketball-reference.com...&stat=FGP&sort=asc&limit=25&submit=View+Teams
> 
> Can show you the regular season team stats. I went through and looked at the champ and runner up's rankings for the last twenty championships.
> 
> ...


Thanks Mike. Thats interesting stuff in that it lends some support to both arguments. Its too bad we don't have a reference for how they ranked in the playoffs like what Johnston797 was able to find on ESPN's temporally limited data-base.

Notwithstanding the unrelated pot shots DaBullz and I have been taking at each other, this is actually a really interesting discussion.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Just because a team plays great offense doesn't mean it plays no defense.
> 
> If I turn this around on you, then any team that ranks in the top 3-5 offensive FG% has won it (purely, you imply) on offense.
> 
> So both those Lakers teams did it on offense, eh?


I never meant to imply that anybody won *purely* on defense- I'm just saying that no matter how good your offense is, once the playoffs roll around you aren't winning with a pourous defense. That's why I used the Rams as an example, they only won a championship once their defense improved. Ask Peyton Manning and all the Colts fans what it's like to have no defense in the playoffs.

I am saying that defense is more important than offense once the playoffs roll around. Each and every team in the NBA has guys who can score, but if you can't stop the other team down the stretch, you aren't winning anything.

Everyone remembers MJ's final shot as a Bull, the one that won the 6th championship- but if he hadn't stolen the ball from Malone seconds earlier when the Bulls were trailing by one with 15 seconds left in the game, he doesn't even have a chance to shoot for the win.

The one time MJ's bulls were really threatened- 1993 vs the Knicks- the play that stands out in time is Charles Smith "blocked by Jordan, blocked by Pippen, blocked by Grant, blocked by Pippen". Defense.



> EDIT: The one who called me "stat boy" is the one who suggested defensive FG% is the measure of defense. It's A measure, but not exactly the one I'd use to make his argument. Dan uses points per 100 posessions, I do believe, which makes a lot more sense to me, because a .400 FG% team might shoot 200 shots in a game while a .500 FG% team might shoot 100 shots in the game. Guess who wins?


I agree, but since nobody has found Pts Per Poss for the playoffs, we'll have to go with defensive FG%.

And you'll find they are usually pretty close rankings-wise, FG% being directly correlated to how many points you score.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I used to be a football fan. 

The game has gotten to the point where a team falls behind 14 points, it goes into panic mode. Especially against a really good offensive team. Gotta keep up or fall way behind. The problem is once you're in pass 9-out-of-10 plays mode, the defense plays 6 cornerbacks and it's just tough. It's not good defense, it's the nature of the game. So I don't think the Rams analogy means squat. Sorry.

There's another way to look at offense vs. defense using the numbers. Bulls with MJ, Bulls without. The season before and the first one he retired. You can evaluate for yourself what the difference was on O and D:

<B>With MJ (1992-93), Bulls scored 109.5, gave up 103.3</B>
Next season (1993-94), Bulls scored 103.0, gave up 100.2

Here's your correlation between having the league's leading scorer (and top tier defender):

<B>With MJ, Bulls shot .482, opponents .474</B>
Without, Bulls shot .476, opponents .463

<B>With MJ, championship</B>
Without, playoff exit

(The reason I like this method is you have just about 1 variable, MJ. Kukoc was a rookie the 2nd year, so the 2nd variable).

EDIT: interesting... Without MJ, scoring goes down 6 and defense goes up 3, yet they don't win a championship. But with 3 points WORSE defense and 6 points better offense, they do.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> I never meant to imply that anybody won purely on defense- I'm just saying that *no matter how good your offense is, once the playoffs roll around you aren't winning with a porous defense.* That's why I used the Rams as an example, they only won a championship once their defense improved. Ask Peyton Manning and all the Colts fans what it's like to have no defense in the playoffs.


That's exactly it. The NBA and NFL have proven this to be true over and over again.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I used to be a football fan.
> 
> The game has gotten to the point where a team falls behind 14 points, it goes into panic mode. Especially against a really good offensive team. Gotta keep up or fall way behind. The problem is once you're in pass 9-out-of-10 plays mode, the defense plays 6 cornerbacks and it's just tough. It's not good defense, it's the nature of the game. So I don't think the Rams analogy means squat. Sorry.
> 
> ...


Well, you used these 2 pages, right? but you mistook Eff. for ppg. It's misleading. 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1993.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1994.html


1993: Offense: 109.5 Efficiency. *3rd* in League. 
1993: Defense: 103.3 Efficiency. 8th in League. 
League Average: 105 in both stats.

1994 Offense: 103.0 Eff. *15th* in League. 
1994 Offense: 100.2 Eff. 6th in League. 
League Average: 103.3 in both. 

So without Jordan, their defense stayed largely the same, but their offense fell 12 spots and became average. 

So with an average offense instead of a top-3 offense, they don't win a championship. It's not a strong point.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Sorry DaBullz, but do you have some *playoff* stats on MJ's Bulls?

Interesting stuff, to be sure. Unfortunately, it means and proves nothing with regards to my point about defense winning in the playoffs. Offense sure is pretty, but ask Mark Cuban about having a team that doesn't play enough defense to win come playoff time.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

You DO have to get to the playoffs first, eh?

EDIT: The Mavs were tied for the best record one season. You cannot say with any assurance at all that they lost the playoffs because of bad defense. Just mmmmmayyybe it was Dirk getting hurt for the rest of the playoffs once they got there. Maybe.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> You DO have to get to the playoffs first, eh?


Yes, in order to win a championship, you have to get into the playoffs. Now that you've cleared that up...


> EDIT: The Mavs were tied for the best record one season. You cannot say with any assurance at all that they lost the playoffs because of bad defense. Just mmmmmayyybe it was Dirk getting hurt for the rest of the playoffs once they got there. Maybe.


Maybe? Sure. Maybe not? Sure. Just like you can't say with any assurance that they would have won the NBA title if Dirk had stayed healthy. If. Mabye. But. It's all speculation and conjecture.

We have playoff stats for 4 seasons, and the NBA Champs were 2nd, 2nd, 2nd and 6th out of 16 teams in FG% defense. Those are facts, forget your opinion or my opinion, facts are facts.

I'm all for a good discussion, but I'm always much more interested in fact than theory.

So far, all the facts we have are that defense is more important than offense when it comes to winning an NBA Championship. It's not a huge sample, but it's all we have, and it's unanimous. If you aren't in the top 6 in FG% defense out of the 16 playoff teams, you don't win a championship. Period.

I would be glad to look at the playoff stats from before 2001 if anyone has them?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Your facts are selective. What were those teams' offensive FG% (again, if that's the meaningful benchmark...)


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> EDIT: The Mavs were tied for the best record one season. You cannot say with any assurance at all that they lost the playoffs because of bad defense. Just mmmmmayyybe it was Dirk getting hurt for the rest of the playoffs once they got there. Maybe.


They also mmmmmmiiggghhhtt not have beaten the Kings had Webber not gotten hurt - and that was before Dirk got hurt. Sac was playing great ball and almost beat Dallas without Webber (series went 7 close games).

just sayin'


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Your facts are selective. What were those teams' offensive FG% (again, if that's the meaningful benchmark...)


I don't know, because their offensive FG% has nothing to do with my point- which is, once again, you don't win in the playoffs without a good defense, no matter how good (or bad, or indifferent) your offense is.

Nobody is disputing the fact that you have to be able to score to win in the playoffs, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. I agree 100%.

Can we get past that yet?

Once again, do you have any evidence of a team that was in the bottom half of the league in playoff defense winning a championship? I have given proof of teams with top-notch and above-average defenses winning championships (4 of 4 to be exact), where's the team that won while playing bad defense in the playoffs? 

Just one. Forget about offense for a minute. We all know that you can't win without scoring. One team that played bad defense in the playoffs and won a championship, that's all.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I don't know, because their offensive FG% has nothing to do with my point- which is, once again, you don't win in the playoffs without a good defense, no matter how good (or bad, or indifferent) your offense is.
> 
> Nobody is disputing the fact that you have to be able to score to win in the playoffs, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. I agree 100%.
> 
> ...



I happen to agree with you that good defense is a good thing. But I also think yesterday's Dallas/Phoenix game is also a fine way to win games.

Dan Rosenbaum brought up TWO teams (well, lakers both times) that played much better offense than defense, and won. 

Here's a more complete list. I'll bold the champs I consider those won with offense more than defense. I'll use red to emphasize the champs who won on defense.

<B>1979-80 Lakers 1st in offense, 9th in defense</B>
1980-81 Celtics 5th in offense, 4th in defense
<B>1981-82 Lakers 2nd in offense, 9th in defense</B>
1982-83 Sixers 5th in offense, 5th in defense
1983-84 Celtics 6th in offense, 3rd in defense
<B>1984-85 Lakers 1st in offense, 6th in defense</B>
1985-86 Celtics 3rd in offense, 2nd in defense
<B>1986-87 Lakers 1st in offense, 6th in defense</B>
<B>1987-88 Lakers 2nd in offense, 11th in defense</B>
<FONT COLOR=#ff0000>1988-89 Pistons 7th in offense, 3rd in defense</FONT>
<FONT COLOR=#ff0000>1989-90 Pistons 11th in offense, 1st in defense</FONT>
<B>1990-91 Bulls 1st in offense, 6th in defense</B>
<B>1991-92 Bulls 1st in offense, 4th in defense</B>
<B>1992-93 Bulls 3rd in offense, 8th in defense</B>
<FONT COLOR=#ff0000>1993-94 Rockets 14th in offense, 4th in defense</FONT>
<B>1994-95 Rockets 6th in offense, 12th in defense</B>
1995-96 Bulls 1st in offense, 1st in defense
<B>1996-97 Bulls 1st in offense, 4th in defense</B>
<FONT COLOR=#ff0000>1997-98 Bulls 12th in offense, 3rd in defense</FONT>
<FONT COLOR=#ff0000>1998-99 Spurs 10th in offense, 1st in defense</FONT>
1999-00 Lakers 4th in offense, 1st in defense
<B>2000-01 Lakers 2nd in offense, 19th in defense</B>
<B>2001-02 Lakers 2nd in offense, 7th in defense</B>
<FONT COLOR=#ff0000>2002-03 Spurs 6th in offense, 3rd in defense</FONT>
<FONT COLOR=#ff0000>2003-04 Pistons 18th in offense, 2nd in defense</FONT>

(Looks like 12-7 to me, you can quibble with a few I may have left as neither)


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Here's a more complete list. I'll bold the champs I consider those won with offense more than defense.


I don't think this is the debate here. Isn't the issue whether or not you can win a championship while playing poor defense. This is not the same as having more offense than defense. If you look at those teams you listed, generally speaking they seemed to be quality defensive teams.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't think this is the debate here. Isn't the issue whether or not you can win a championship while playing poor defense. This is not the same as having more offense than defense. If you look at those teams you listed, generally speaking they seemed to be quality defensive teams.


The debate here is "should we have traded Chandler?" ;-)

When did "poor defense" ever come into this? The question is whether you have to play the very best defense to win championships, right?

What I've been arguing is that you clearly have to be one hellaciously great defensive team to win championships on defense alone, yet you can be a so-so defensive team and a great offensive team and win championships. And the latter is more the case than the former.

EDIT: some of those Lakers teams were clearly not very good defensive teams.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The debate here is "should we have traded Chandler?" ;-)


True. I stand corrected. This thread has taken on a life of its own. Although, more properly, the debate here might be framed as "should we have traded Chandler for a deal that never existed?"



DaBullz said:


> When did "poor defense" ever come into this? The question is whether you have to play the very best defense to win championships, right?


I don't think the question is whether your defense has to be the "very best." If it is, that position is clearly wrong. Generally, your defense needs to be good, but not necessarily the greatest. The list of teams you had generally, but not always, seemed to have good defenses.



DaBullz said:


> What I've been arguing is that you clearly have to be one hellaciously great defensive team to win championships on defense alone,


Agreed.



DaBullz said:


> yet you can be a so-so defensive team and a great offensive team and win championships.


Also agreed, but I don't think it's the normal model, if there is such a thing.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> *The debate here is "should we have traded Chandler?" ;-)
> 
> When did "poor defense" ever come into this?* The question is whether you have to play the very best defense to win championships, right?
> 
> ...


*Several pages back, you've been quite active in the debate. But I'll assume you would trade him, with the way you are saying that offense is more important than defense.*

I still haven't seen anyone claim that you can win a championship on defense alone. All everyone is saying is that you can't win a championship if you don't play defense in the playoffs.

Look at your own regular season stats... 18 of the 25 champs were top-6 in the league in defense. The only team in the bottom half was the 2001 Lakers, who were 6th in PLAYOFF DEFENSE, when it counts. 

Even as the regular season winds on into March, defense gets more important with each passing game.

Defense is even more important now, with the rules having been adjusted to increase scoring. Just look at the top 6 and bottom 6 teams in FG% defense this season:

Chicago 29-24 (20-7 in 2005)
San Antonio 42-13
Detroit 34-19 (19-6 in 2005)
Houston 32-24 (17-9 in 2005)
Miami 42-16
Memphis 31-25 (17-8 in 2005)
_____________________

Golden State 16-38
Atlanta 10-44
New York 23-33
Charlotte 11-42
Washington 31-24
Toronto 24-32

Coincidence? I think not. And like I said way back in December when we were 7-15...

A Different Board 


But as the season grinds on, when teams start getting serious about the playoffs, two things will win out more often than not- defense and rebounding. 

So, which team in the top-8 in the East falls? 

The Magic have a lot of talent, but they give up 100 points a game. 

Ditto the Wizards, and their big-3 have to play a lot of minutes. 

Ditto part 2 the Celtics, Doc has never made his teams play defense. 

Ditto again the Knicks, they play no defense and have no inside game really at all. 

Nobody knows what's up with Indy, they are going to get way down waiting for SJax and JO to come back- and when they do, how good will they be without Crazy Ron? (I don't think they'll miss him, but a lot of people think he's a franchise player). 

The Heat, Cavs and Pistons should be locks- although the Pistons are struggling now, they'll be there. 

Oh yeah, we are making the playoffs, barring major injuries.

Right now, the only teams in the East that I see are clearly better than us are the Heat, the Pistons, and maybe the Cavs- although the Cavs may be the benificiary of their easy early schedule.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FWIW, I'm one of the first members of the "Don't trade Chandler club" and I'm proud to be in it.

I do think if you aren't going to be a huge factor on offense, you better play defense to make up for it.

I don't believe Chandler is a terrific defender. He's big and quick and able to affect shots, if not block them. And grab rebounds. He's significantly better than Curry on defense, but significantly worse than Ben Wallace. Significantly. About the same as Shawn Bradley at his best.

I also think people underrate Chandler as an offensive option. If the Bulls actually ran plays for him, I think he'd produce quite nicely. As it is, his ability to put back rebounds on the offensive boards, draw fouls, and make free throws are all big contributions he can make (just not as frequently as I'd like).

Now, if defense were the deciding factor in winning championships, then you'd think that the #1 defensive team in the league would win 'em all, if not most of the time. The #1 or #2 top defensive team won it 6 times. The #1 or #2 top offensive team won it 11 times.

for jnjr: define "defense wins championships" ;-)


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> *1979-80 Lakers 1st in offense, 9th in defense*
> 1980-81 Celtics 5th in offense, 4th in defense
> *1981-82 Lakers 2nd in offense, 9th in defense*
> 1982-83 Sixers 5th in offense, 5th in defense
> ...


5 times an offense ranked in double digits and still won a title.
Only 3 times a defense ranked in double digits and still won a title.

Of the 5 times the double digit offense won, they had defensive rankings of 1st (twice), 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

The 3 times a defense ranked in double digits they had offensive rankings of 2nd (twice) and 6th.

Of the 25 years listed, the average offensive ranking was 5th (5.0) and the average defensive ranking was 5th (5.4).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> for jnjr: define "defense wins championships" ;-)


Why should I define it? I didn't say it. All I'm saying is that your own stats support the idea that the teams that win championships are teams that have good defenses. Sheesh.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I happen to agree with you that good defense is a good thing. But I also think yesterday's Dallas/Phoenix game is also a fine way to win games.
> 
> Dan Rosenbaum brought up TWO teams (well, lakers both times) that played much better offense than defense, and won.
> 
> ...


Where did you come up with these numbers? Do you have a link? You are not rating them by FG%, are you? Because in 1990-91, the Celtics shot 51.2% to the Bulls 51.0%.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Those are scoring, which is how team offense/defense is typically displayed on every WWW page I've ever seen.

Like this URL:

http://www.basketballreference.com/leagues/leagueyear.htm?lg=N&yr=2003

At the bottom.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> The debate here is "should we have traded Chandler?" ;-)
> 
> When did "poor defense" ever come into this? The question is whether you have to play the very best defense to win championships, right?
> 
> ...


This year, the Phoenix Suns are ranked 1st offensively, and 18th defensively. Seattle is ranked 2nd offensively, and 22nd defensively. Will they win a championship? (The Spurs are ranked 6th offensively and 1st Defensively).


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> This year, the Phoenix Suns are ranked 1st offensively, and 18th defensively. Seattle is ranked 2nd offensively, and 22nd defensively. Will they win a championship? (The Spurs are ranked 6th offensively and 1st Defensively).


Neither Phoenix or Seattle will even get to the WC Finals, one of them probably loses in the first round. Right now Seattle would have to play Houston and Phoenix would get Memphis, they could each lose in the first round.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I happen to agree with you that good defense is a good thing. But I also think yesterday's Dallas/Phoenix game is also a fine way to win games.
> 
> Dan Rosenbaum brought up TWO teams (well, lakers both times) that played much better offense than defense, and won.
> 
> ...


Well, if you give DaBullz long enough, he'll eventually post stats and/or quotes that disprove his own point. There are only 3 teams here that were worse than 10th defensively. Thus proving that with very few exceptions, teams need to play good defense to win championships. I also love how there are so many top defensive teams that, just because their offenses were also excellent, are in bold, suggesting that they "won (only) with offense". And you accused bullsville of being selective with stats?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Well, if you give DaBullz long enough, he'll eventually post stats and/or quotes that disprove his own point. There are only 3 teams here that were worse than 10th defensively. Thus proving that with very few exceptions, teams need to play good defense to win championships. I also love how there are so many top defensive teams that, just because their offenses were also excellent, are in bold, suggesting that they "won (only) with offense". And you accused bullsville of being selective with stats?


Quote me where I said "won (only) with offense."

The question is "does defense win championships"

The data looks far more like offense wins it. Awesome defense wins it, but about 1/2 as frequently as great offense does.

If defense wins championships, why aren't all the champs the #1 ranked defense? Yet there are 11 on that list ranked #1 or #2 on offense but 6 that are ranked #1 or #2 on defense.

Try again.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Well, if you give DaBullz long enough, he'll eventually post stats and/or quotes that disprove his own point. There are only 3 teams here that were worse than 10th defensively. Thus proving that with very few exceptions, teams need to play good defense to win championships. I also love how there are so many top defensive teams that, just because their offenses were also excellent, are in bold, suggesting that they "won (only) with offense". And you accused bullsville of being selective with stats?


Selective? You mean like how he counted a team that was 1st on offense and 4th on defense as proving his point (the 96-97 Bulls) but omitted a team that was 4th on offense and 1st on defense (the 99-00 Lakers)?

Or do you mean how, of the six years he omitted, only two were tied and the other 4 all constituted evidence against the point he was trying to make?

Or do you mean how he's internally inconsistent in what he choses to emphasize (why is it that in some cases an offense or defense is ranked three spots higher than the other and this is "emphasized" but in other cases its not). For example, he counts the 02-03 Spurs who are 6 on O and 3 on D, but not the 83-84 Celtics who have an identical rating. 

The really ridiculous thing is I can't even figure out why there's a need to doctor the evidence like this. Even accounting for all the omissions the evidence probably weakly supports the case that "Defense doesn't win championships". That is, it's at least not clear cut in any way I can tell.

Of course, the better way to tell would be to look at both the champions and the runners up. Do good offensive teams beat good defensive teams or vice versa?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Here's a question- when you get to the championship, does defense or offense consistently win out?

I'd give a very slight edge to defense.

I went through the last 20 seasons on BBall Reference, and looked at average points for and points against during the regular season for the champions and runners up.

I looked at the difference between the champions' offense and the runner up's offense, and their defenses.

In 2 cases, the champion had better offense and better defense
In 8 cases, the champion had better offense and worse defense 
In 10 cases, the champion had better defense and worse offense

On average, the champion gave up .6 ppg to runner up but was 2.0 ppg better on defense.

Just looking at the magnitude of the differences, I'd say that the better defensive team won 11 times, and the better offensive team 8 times. The Spurs and Nets in 03 was featured two teams that were within a half a point in both offensive and defensive PPG, so I'd leave them out, but the Spurs were slightly better on offense.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

DaBullz just used scoring average as well. Well, the 90 Bulls created much of their offense through great defense. Example - pickoff a pass as mid-court for an easy dunk. 

Clearly championship level teams need to be very effective on O and D.

I certainly see our team much more likely to get there by keeping TC, cutting down on TOs and letting all of these young guys improve.

While sending off our best defender might help on O, it's too big a determent on D especially given the rest of the core.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The teams I bolded were all 1st or 2nd on offense, or in the two exceptions, 8th and 12th on defense (I don't think you could argue they won with defense). The teams I made red were all 1st or 2nd on defense, or 6th or worse on offense.

True, looking at it, the 99-00 Lakers should be red. It wasn't a selective thing, it was a mistke. Sue me.

As I wrote, you can quibble with the remaining ones.

The post was in response to the suggestion that a team like the Mavericks couldn't win a title.

2002-2003, Mavericks were 1st on offense, 9th on defense. Comprarable to at least 4 of the teams on that list, if not more.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Champions and runners up? Talk about selective.

For the 90s, it would be more proper to use the east conference finalists - either would have beaten the west coast "runner up." For the 80s, maybe reversed. Certainly reversed in recent years.

So you're comparing the strongest of the east (in the 90s) against the strongest of the west, not the to strongest contenders for the title.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> DaBullz just used scoring average as well. Well, the 90 Bulls created much of their offense through great defense. Example - pickoff a pass as mid-court for an easy dunk.
> 
> Clearly championship level teams need to be very effective on O and D.
> 
> ...


So how does a great defensive team that gets lots of steals or blocks or cause turnovers, and turning those into points, end up giving up so many points on defense?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

This thread will be great to bump - for either DaBullz' point or the contrary point - once we all see how Seattle and Phoenix do in the playoffs.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> This thread will be great to bump - for either DaBullz' point or the contrary point - once we all see how Seattle and Phoenix do in the playoffs.


Barring injuries, this is true.

San Antonio is going to be tough, but if they get bumped off, it's going to be one of Seattle, Phoenix, Dallas, or Sacramento likely in the finals.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Champions and runners up? Talk about selective.


On the contrary. The question is whether "defense wins championships".

The championship is decided by head to head competition in the finals. So if defense wins championships, we should see that the better defensive team tends to win.

This is what we see by a very slight margin. I don't think the sort of clear cut distinction you guys seem to be arguing about exists. If you lack either defense or offense, you probably aren't going to win the championship.

Anyway, there really is no other criteria, in a strict sense, than looking at the champion and the runner up. They are the only two teams playing for the championship.



> For the 90s, it would be more proper to use the east conference finalists - either would have beaten the west coast "runner up." For the 80s, maybe reversed. Certainly reversed in recent years.


No, that's an assumption that is unknown and begs the question. In the example I cited, we know for a certainty that the Champions beat the runners up. We can then look at the stats to get clues as to why.

One can't, however, compare the stats of two teams that didn't play (like the EC runner up and WC champ) find a correlation, and then ASSUME it means one would beat the other.

And what would it mean if "offense" won you the conference championship? Maybe it does (we could look at the EC champ vs. the EC runner up and the same for the WC), but it doesn't obviate the fact that to actually win the championship in the finals there's a slight nod to the better defensive team.

But, I don't think a really clear cut pattern exists in either case.



> So you're comparing the strongest of the east (in the 90s) against the strongest of the west, not the to strongest contenders for the title.


That's surprising that you think this, since your prior post relied on a showing of the rankings of only the championship teams, not their competition.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> I don't think the sort of clear cut distinction you guys seem to be arguing about exists. If you lack either defense or offense, you probably aren't going to win the championship.


I think that sums up this thread pretty well.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Quote me where I said "won (only) with offense."
> 
> The question is "does defense win championships"
> 
> ...


You didn't actually say (only). That was something I added for emphasis/embellishment and shouldn't have put in quotation marks. My bad. Nonetheless, your initial foray into this debate was very dismissive of the importance of good defense. No one, at any point, has suggested that you can be an atrocious offensive team and win the championship. Last year's Pistons were the only team that comes close to filling that description. 

The argument at hand here (as far as I can tell) is that it's almost impossible to win a championship if you can't play defense. Pointing out that a team is #1 in offense but only #5 in defense, yet won the championship, does nothing to disprove this point - it actually strengthens it because they were a very good defensive team. The first threepeat Bulls may not have been #1 in defense, but we all know how absolutely suffocating they could be when properly motivated (unleashing the dobermans, right?) Notice the only year that the Kings came within a hair of the NBA finals was the year that they were in the top 5 of opponents fg%. There are only a couple teams that won it all without playing good to great defense (relative to the rest of the league anyway). The 2000-01 Lakers being the last - and that team basically screwed around all year before deciding to make a joke of the playoffs.

So, I guess, if you were trying to argue that you can't win championships with defense alone, mission accomplished. If you're trying to show that defense is not necessary, keep trying. If this is a judgment of which is MORE important, I'd say it's almost a draw with a moderate advantage to offense. But as Mikedc put it, you probably aren't winning anything unless you're good on both ends.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> You didn't actually say (only). That was something I added for emphasis/embellishment and shouldn't have put in quotation marks. My bad. Nonetheless, your initial foray into this debate was very dismissive of the importance of good defense. No one, at any point, has suggested that you can be an atrocious offensive team and win the championship. Last year's Pistons were the only team that comes close to filling that description.
> 
> The argument at hand here (as far as I can tell) is that it's almost impossible to win a championship if you can't play defense. Pointing out that a team is #1 in offense but only #5 in defense, yet won the championship, does nothing to disprove this point - it actually strengthens it because they were a very good defensive team. The first threepeat Bulls may not have been #1 in defense, but we all know how absolutely suffocating they could be when properly motivated (unleashing the dobermans, right?) Notice the only year that the Kings came within a hair of the NBA finals was the year that they were in the top 5 of opponents fg%. There are only a couple teams that won it all without playing good to great defense (relative to the rest of the league anyway). The 2000-01 Lakers being the last - and that team basically screwed around all year before deciding to make a joke of the playoffs.
> 
> So, I guess, if you were trying to argue that you can't win championships with defense alone, mission accomplished. If you're trying to show that defense is not necessary, keep trying. If this is a judgment of which is MORE important, I'd say it's almost a draw with a moderate advantage to offense. But as Mikedc put it, you probably aren't winning anything unless you're good on both ends.



See this post:

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1936139&postcount=110

Before you try to frame the argument as something it isn't.

"Defense wins championships"

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1934374&postcount=68

I've asked for someone to define what "Defense wins championships" means, but no answers.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> See this post:
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1936139&postcount=110
> 
> ...


My take is that you can have a blistering offense, but unless you're above-average or better on defense, you're very unlikely to win championships. And I think that's how almost everyone else has been arguing about this as well. 

Thus, if you have two dynamite offensive teams (that are nearly equal), but one is top-10 in defense and the other is bottom-10, the team that plays good defense probably wins. In that framework, "defense wins championships". Defense ALONE does not win championships. But neither does offense alone. I think it's semantics at this point. I just wondered why you tried to argue that a team that was #1 on offense and #4 on defense "won with offense", when the fact is they were excellent on both ends and that's probably why they won.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

"Defense wins championships" = "Organizations win championships"

"Defense wins championships" = "You drive for show, you putt for dough"

"Defense wins championships" means "no matter how good you are on offense, if you can't stop the other team, you aren't winning any championships".


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Finally, two great posts/responses.

Here's my take, based upon purely anecdotal evidence.

The Bulls of old used to win championships. I cannot count the last second shots that won games for us (vs. Cleveland, vs. Phoenix, vs. Seattle, vs. Utah...), or the times Jordan would set a record for 3 pointers, or whatever. 

The championships weren't won with defense. The team was awesome on defense. The championships were won because Jordan was unstoppable in the post. It was his scoring, all night long. The games were close, in spite of the defense. The difference was Kerr or Kukoc or Pippen (remember him taking the bow after Miller apparently beat us with his offense?) or Paxson or Jordan making a winning shot.

This is in spite of a defense that was literally smothering for whole quarters.

Even last season, the Pistons won with offense. My view is that adding Sheed was the missing piece. OFFENSIVELY. A big-time scorer. The guy that years' worth of portland teams were built around. And on top of that, the guy who won the MVP wasn't awarded it for his defense, it was for all the times he drove to the hoop. He was so tough that Kobe (1st team defense) couldn't stop him, and he had to try.

So when I hear "Defense wins championships" it means to me that the coach is encouraging his players to play hard at both ends of the court. Nothing more. 

The thing about defense is that when your offense isn't going well, you can stay close enough in the game for your offense to heat up and win it for you. Without that offense, you stay in the game and lose.

So, yes, defense is important. But it isn't what wins it.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

You bring up MJ's last-second shots. I bring up the shot that won the 1997 championship- it wouldn't have been possible if MJ hadn't stolen the ball from Malone 15 seconds earlier with the Bulls down by 1. You may need to watch more ESPN Classic, watch the old Bulls, down the stretch MJ scored, yes, but they stopped teams on the other end.

The thing is, when you get to the playoffs, ALL of the serious title contenders can score. But if you don't play D, you don't win championships- as every stat has proven.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

And BTW, does anyone know when the Pistons became the Pistons?

Remember the 2003 playoffs? The Pistons were down 3-1 to the Magic and TMac was killing Detroit, and Rick Carlisle finally started playing Tayshaun Prince. He shut TMac down, and the Pistons became the 7th team in NBA history to come back from a 3-1 series deficit.

They went on to beat Philly in the 2nd round before losing to the Nets in the EC Finals. That propelled them into last season, where the Sheed move put them over the top.

But they became the team they were because of Tayshaun's lock-down defense. The job he did on Artest and Kobe last season won them the title. He completely took both of them out of their games on offense, and Artest finally lost it on defense after Tayshaun had basically made Ron his beeyatch for most of the first 5 games and 44 minutes.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Good points, both of you. I think we could go back and forth ad infinitum with examples of great offense and great defense that did a LOT to propel teams to championships. At least now we've found a middle ground to some extent. DaBullz's evidence may suggest that offense trumps defense, but it's not by much. And nearly every champion in recent memory has also played very good defense. 

Sheed put them over the top, but I remember their stretch of holding opponents under 80 points shortly after the trade. I also remember them bottling up two first-ballot hall of famers in the NBA Finals. They had a bunch of good offensive players, but no legends. Their defense made them a special team.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

Hey guys, check out this old (vintage!) article by Dean Oliver, the Sonics statistical guru and author of Basketball on Paper.

They Say Defense Wins Championships

I don't think it will resolve this, but it does have some points per possesion data from 86 to 97. A really small sample is used in his discussion though.

I think it all comes down to interpretation; if you interpret the quote to mean defense is more crucial than offense there isn't much evidence to support this. It's a nebulous debate though because the NBA does not exist in a snow globe and the sample size is rather small -- rules change, players come and go, and the sample size is rather limited.

If you interpret the quote to mean that defense is usually a necesary ingredient, then it makes sense. But often it is used to slam teams that actually _defend_, like Dan Rosenbaum's example, the Kings, because people are so clueless when it comes to interpreting statistics. 

Basically, I think the phrase is a BS bomb used by "analysts" to basically avoid actually doing any analysis. :biggrin:


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Barring injuries, this is true.
> 
> San Antonio is going to be tough, but if they get bumped off, it's going to be one of Seattle, Phoenix, Dallas, or Sacramento likely in the finals.


That's extremely broad, don't you think? I know it's hard to predict, and not really a fair question, but do you think Phoenix or Seattle will make the NBA Finals or not? Or is San Antonio too good? If San Antonio didn't exist, would they make the finals?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> That's extremely broad, don't you think? I know it's hard to predict, and not really a fair question, but do you think Phoenix or Seattle will make the NBA Finals or not? Or is San Antonio too good? If San Antonio didn't exist, would they make the finals?


Broad, true, but all those teams would be considered offensive teams that don't focus so much on defense ;-)

http://www.vegas.com/gaming/futures/nbabasketball.html
Oddsmakers have the current odds at:
Spurs 6/5
Suns 3/1
Heat 3/1
Pistons 3/1
Sonics 8/1
Kings 15/1
Mavericks 15/1
Wizards 15/1
Cavaliers 15/1
(Bulls 30/1)

I think the Suns or Sonics would make the finals if the Spurs get bumped off. I'm not going off these odds in my analysis, but the odds do agree with what you suggest.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I did not go through all this long thread.

But I certainly do not agree with it's title.

Tyson is a keeper for sure. Not easy getting guys like him to control 4th q defense. The kind of very high rebounds he gets. 

Pax did good to keep the core , maybe he should've tried a little one (FW for 2nd rounder) , but he stayed quiet.

I'm a little disapointed we could've got Jiri for a 2007 pick (like Cavs) and did not. 

But Tyson is one of the last guys I'd trade in this team!!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Finally, two great posts/responses.
> 
> Here's my take, based upon purely anecdotal evidence.
> 
> ...


By that logic the games were also close "in spite of" the Bulls' unstoppable offense.

It seems to me this argument is still circular. You need to score, and you need to stop the other team from scoring both. To say one is paramount to the other misses the basic nature of the game.

If a player is unstoppable on offense, that doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that no one played good enough defense to stop him.

And if a player is stopped on offense to the extent the game can't be one, it's obvious someone played good enough defense to do it.

Chauncy Billups was only unstoppable because no one stopped him. Of course he didn't make every shot, but the Lakers didn't stop him enough to win.
Kobe, in the same series, was clearly stoppable. Not all the time, but enough for the Pistons to win.

The bottom line is that the game simply isn't played in two independent phases called "offense" and "defense". One team's offense can't be separated from its opponent's defense and vice versa.

Therefore, to really say "offense wins" or "defense wins" doesn't seem to work. At best, you can look at the averages and assume some probabilities, but there the statistics are very close together on whether (aggregately) stronger offensive or defensive teams win.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> The bottom line is that the game simply isn't played in two independent phases called "offense" and "defense". One team's offense can't be separated from its opponent's defense and vice versa.


Phoenix's team this year has really opened my eyes to the impact a team's own offensive performance can have on its defense.

Phoenix's opponents, especially the teams that are less-skilled offensively, are so aware / fearful of what Phoenix will do once they get the ball back, either on a miss or (remarkably) a make, it hampers their execution. 

And while most teams probably play better defense after they've scored, I think with the Bulls its even more pronounced. Hence my recent concerns about our offensive execution leading to "worse" defense.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

to all chandler fans out there


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Phoenix's team this year has really opened my eyes to the impact a team's own offensive performance can have on its defense.
> 
> Phoenix's opponents, especially the teams that are less-skilled offensively, are so aware / fearful of what Phoenix will do once they get the ball back, either on a miss or (remarkably) a make, it hampers their execution.
> 
> And while most teams probably play better defense after they've scored, I think with the Bulls its even more pronounced. Hence my recent concerns about our offensive execution leading to "worse" defense.


I watched the end of the Suns/Pistons game last night. Turned it on at the start of the 4th quarter. Suns were down by 10, led by as many as 8 or 10, I believe. Ended the game winning by 3. Phoenix outscored Detroit 34-21 in Q4.

Detroit outrebounded Phoenix 56-37, took 5 more FGA, 3 more FTs, and blocked 3 more shots.

Offense won this matchup of offense vs. defense (team philosophy).


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Phoenix's team this year has really opened my eyes to the impact a team's own offensive performance can have on its defense.
> 
> Phoenix's opponents, especially the teams that are less-skilled offensively, are so aware / fearful of what Phoenix will do once they get the ball back, either on a miss or (remarkably) a make, it hampers their execution.
> 
> And while most teams probably play better defense after they've scored, I think with the Bulls its even more pronounced. Hence my recent concerns about our offensive execution leading to "worse" defense.


What's that they say 

Attack is the best form of defense ?

I think your right on the money with this .. and yes I also agree with you - our half court offensive execution is contributory to some of the defensive issues we have been experiencing


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Bump. In light of this series and this game 7, does this add any more credence to the notion of defense winning championships?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Bump. In light of this series and this game 7, does this add any more credence to the notion of defense winning championships?


Its tough, overall both teams are great defensively. Pistons obviously have the tougher interior defense, and that has given the Bulls trouble, which in light of the trade idea I made at the beginning of the trade, it makes the trade look stupid in that light. Pistons are nothing without that tough interior defense, but Chandler isn't the same tough as Ben Wallace is, at least not year, and Curry isn't quite at Rasheed's level yet either. But where we do have an advantage is length. Chandler is 7'2" at least minimum, with long arms. He can get up and block and alter shots. Curry is wide, and long, and he clogs the lane making it tougher for a player to get to the hoop. Chandler grabs the rebounds good, and Curry boxes out 2 people effectively. In light of everything, if I had to make a decision on this trade or not I wouldn't do it. We have a good pair to go into the future as far as interior defense go. Chandler is a hustle guy so he can score off putbacks and hustle plays and fastbreaks. Curry can score in the post with an array of moves, and off putbacks and the fastbreak. This frontcourt should work for years to come and tantalizethe league and should suceed the Pistons soon as the best frontcourt in the NBA.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

sloth said:


> Its tough, overall both teams are great defensively. Pistons obviously have the tougher interior defense, and that has given the Bulls trouble, which in light of the trade idea I made at the beginning of the trade, it makes the trade look stupid in that light. Pistons are nothing without that tough interior defense, but Chandler isn't the same tough as Ben Wallace is, at least not year, and Curry isn't quite at Rasheed's level yet either. But where we do have an advantage is length. Chandler is 7'2" at least minimum, with long arms. He can get up and block and alter shots. Curry is wide, and long, and he clogs the lane making it tougher for a player to get to the hoop. Chandler grabs the rebounds good, and Curry boxes out 2 people effectively. In light of everything, if I had to make a decision on this trade or not I wouldn't do it. We have a good pair to go into the future as far as interior defense go. Chandler is a hustle guy so he can score off putbacks and hustle plays and fastbreaks. Curry can score in the post with an array of moves, and off putbacks and the fastbreak. This frontcourt should work for years to come and tantalizethe league and should suceed the Pistons soon as the best frontcourt in the NBA.


Yeah, I'm definitely not bumping this threat with the intention of bringing up the original subject, which was trading Chandler. This thread started like that but then quickly developed into a heated debate about whether offense or defense wins championships and what the phrase "defense wins championships" even really means. Considering they just said that the combined first half score here was the lowest since instituting the shot clock, I was merely trying to re-raise the subject of whether or not being a elite defensive team like Detroit or San Antonio is more important than being an elite offensive team like Dallas or Phoenix.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Yeah, I'm definitely not bumping this threat with the intention of bringing up the original subject, which was trading Chandler. This thread started like that but then quickly developed into a heated debate about whether offense or defense wins championships and what the phrase "defense wins championships" even really means. Considering they just said that the combined first half score here was the lowest since instituting the shot clock, I was merely trying to re-raise the subject of whether or not being a elite defensive team like Detroit or San Antonio is more important than being an elite offensive team like Dallas or Phoenix.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but LA and CHI were both top of the league in defense and offense when they won their titles in the recent past. The Spurs were a top defense and slightly above average offense, and the pistons were great defense, average offense when they won the title. It his hard to scope on this because the Bulls and Lakers just dominated at everything, but outside of them, which were both good defensive teams, the other 2 winners have been good defensive teams too. So you need a good defense to win championships imo unless you can just blow the team away with lots of points.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Defence allows you to content for the confence finals and nba finals, 
offence variety wins series.

You either have to have multiple scoreres or scorers that can score in multiple ways because over a series good defensive sides will take away your strengths.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Bump. In light of this series and this game 7, does this add any more credence to the notion of defense winning championships?


Not really because it wasn't offense vs. defense. When it's offense vs. defense, defense usually trumps offense. In a championship series, this rarely happens though because virually all championship teams have had a balance of both. In this case if you had to pick out a defining traits, it was defense vs. defense, with TD's individual offensive efforts that ultimately decided the series.

What this series did show was that individual superstar players (Manu and TD) with offensive ablities can crack a whole system, and that's why a lot of the championships have been won by combinations of great players rather than great teams. Not that they were ballhogging, but compared to the Pistons who swung the ball and found a lot of easy shots early in the game, the Spurs' strategy looked a lot less systematic and tactical and more desperate, relying on perimeter ball movement only when Duncan got crowded. They didn't seem to change their offensive strategy at all even when they went down 6.


----------

