PDA

View Full Version : Can you really be a star bigman in the NBA without being a defensive anchor?



Chronz
12-25-2013, 02:52 PM
If you're a big who can score decently(/not elite) but cant defend the rim worth squat (Cousins, Al Jefferson, Z-Bo), can a team truly justify your stature as a franchise guy? I feel like its easier to find sources of scoring from every other position, but defensive dominance MUST come from your bigs. Just look at whats happened to the once proud Memphis defense without Gasol. Look at how awful Sacramento has remained despite Cousins improvements.

You tell me whats a better setup, a high scoring PG with a rim protecting big. Or a high scoring Center with a great defensive PG? Prolly not gonna get much value from that defensive PG.

This might come off as common sense to some of you but the question Im trying to raise is this, do defensive anchors with limited offense have more value than go-to guys who just suck at defense?

HYFR
12-25-2013, 02:55 PM
I wouldn't want my team building around a center that's plays no defense. Just look at what Hibbert does for Indy says it all. He barely avgs double figures but he puts his stamp on the game by protecting the rim.

Greet
12-25-2013, 03:23 PM
Well to answer the thread question, I do believe that they can be a star without being a defensive anchor.

To answer your other question, a scoring PG/defensive C is probably better.

b@llhog24
12-25-2013, 03:34 PM
Well it obviously depends on the makeup of the team but generally speaking defensive big men are more valuable than "good" scoring big men.

Htownballa1622
12-25-2013, 03:41 PM
This is why Omer is valued so high by Morey.

Not saying he is a star but he can anchor a defense.

To answer the question. You can be a "star" but idk if you can be the elite Superstar. (Dwight, Duncan, Gasol, Hibbert.)

WadeKobe
12-25-2013, 03:56 PM
If you're a big who can score decently(/not elite) but cant defend the rim worth squat (Cousins, Al Jefferson, Z-Bo), can a team truly justify your stature as a franchise guy? I feel like its easier to find sources of scoring from every other position, but defensive dominance MUST come from your bigs. Just look at whats happened to the once proud Memphis defense without Gasol. Look at how awful Sacramento has remained despite Cousins improvements.

You tell me whats a better setup, a high scoring PG with a rim protecting big. Or a high scoring Center with a great defensive PG? Prolly not gonna get much value from that defensive PG.

This might come off as common sense to some of you but the question Im trying to raise is this, do defensive anchors with limited offense have more value than go-to guys who just suck at defense?

It's tough. What do we mean by a "go-to guy"? Because while a defensively dominant big is not replaceable by a dominant wing defender, neither are dominant paint shots replaceable by dominant mid-range scoring.

Points per game are the easiest thing on a basketball court to replace. Shooting efficiency (TS%) is the most difficult thing to replace. Rebounding is also far more difficult to replace than points, and has more marginal value, but defensive rebounds are easier to replace than offensive, especially spread across positions (easier to replace defensive rebounds with a SF than offensive).

A big's primary roles are, in order:

Shooting efficiency
Rim protection
Offensive rebounds
Defensive rebounds

So, it would seem that offense is slightly more important, in a raw sense, than defense.

However, the idea of replacability is built across positions, and defined by league average. That is, how easy is it to replace league average? At the 4/5 I would venture a guess that replacement level or even average are both higher for scoring efficiency and defensive rebounding.

This means that elite defense and offensive rebounding have a larger separation from league average, and therefore at the 4/5 pose an area of more difficulty to replace and more marginal value.

However, the reality seems to me that it's harder to find an offensively elite big who is as bad on defense as some of the best defenders are on offense.

Ben Wallace was better than any and all offensive centers except Shaq that he played against. But Shaq was much better because he was mediocre defensively while Wallace was awful on offense.

JEDean89
12-25-2013, 04:50 PM
^^^^ shooting efficiency does not come before rim protection, that's crazy. rim protection is the single most important attribute a big can bring to the game. usually bigs are efficient but ill take a big that scores 9 points on 45% shooting if he protects the rim like Larry Sanders. You can get scoring from all the other positions but a C to anchor the defense is way more valuable. Look at Javale, his FG% is solid but his rim protection is awful, that's why I don't like him on my Nuggs.

Jamiecballer
12-25-2013, 05:23 PM
If you're a big who can score decently(/not elite) but cant defend the rim worth squat (Cousins, Al Jefferson, Z-Bo), can a team truly justify your stature as a franchise guy? I feel like its easier to find sources of scoring from every other position, but defensive dominance MUST come from your bigs. Just look at whats happened to the once proud Memphis defense without Gasol. Look at how awful Sacramento has remained despite Cousins improvements.

You tell me whats a better setup, a high scoring PG with a rim protecting big. Or a high scoring Center with a great defensive PG? Prolly not gonna get much value from that defensive PG.

This might come off as common sense to some of you but the question Im trying to raise is this, do defensive anchors with limited offense have more value than go-to guys who just suck at defense?
There is little value in a big that can't defend IMO. Offense from your bigs is like defense from your pg - a luxury but not critical IMO.

Sactown
12-25-2013, 05:26 PM
100% absolutely you can have a franchise with a guy like Cousins you just need to pair him with a shot blocker and/or your rotations have to be crisp.. Sacramento doesnt have one good defensive player on the roster and the coach constantly calls out the perimeter for being unable to contain anyone.

There are plenty of players who you can pair with these types of big men

Birdman
Ibaka
Eyebrow
Tyson Chandler
Drummond
Larry Sanders

And much more
Also cousins has made great strides in defense .. number one in steals ( among. Centers ) one of the league leaders In taking charges regularly and his blocks are much improved .. dudes a beast but were are like last in defending the 3 and our pick n role D is horrible because of late rotations.

Look at Miami Bosh plays center and he isn't intimidating anyone

AddiX
12-25-2013, 05:35 PM
If were talking centers, they must play defense to be a star. It's there #1 job.

If were talking power forwards, I think if they are incredibly dynamic they jay be able to play below average defense and still but a star? I dunno, that's a tough one.

Sactown
12-25-2013, 05:40 PM
If were talking centers, they must play defense to be a star. It's there #1 job.

If were talking power forwards, I think if they are incredibly dynamic they jay be able to play below average defense and still but a star? I dunno, that's a tough one.

I disagree I think you need one good defensive player at the PF or Center doesn't need to be just the Center.. or you just need great rotations from everyone Miami is an elite defensive team and they play Bosh at the 5 for a large number of minutes.. shot blocking to me is overrated

Paul Jeffrey
12-25-2013, 05:44 PM
I wouldn't want my team building around a center that's plays no defense. Just look at what Hibbert does for Indy says it all. He barely avgs double figures but he puts his stamp on the game by protecting the rim.

If I had my choice, Hibbert wouldn't be it. The guy is far far too inefficient from the field for somebody at his position.

Paul Jeffrey
12-25-2013, 05:46 PM
If were talking centers, they must play defense to be a star. It's there #1 job.

If were talking power forwards, I think if they are incredibly dynamic they jay be able to play below average defense and still but a star? I dunno, that's a tough one.

In a traditional sense, defense is a big part of a Center's game. However, whether or not Defense is their #1 job is based on the team they are playing on.

Paul Jeffrey
12-25-2013, 05:54 PM
I disagree I think you need one good defensive player at the PF or Center doesn't need to be just the Center.. or you just need great rotations from everyone Miami is an elite defensive team and they play Bosh at the 5 for a large number of minutes.. shot blocking to me is overrated

No you don't need to have one good defensive big man, it is however preferred, logical, and makes life a whole lot easier on the coaches and the team.

If your team understands rotations, plays physical, and has superb communication then you don't need a defensive big man. Basketball isn't a 1-on-1 game. Teams will run screens and do everything they can to try and draw favorable mismatches or to get a defense out of position but as long as you have superb rotation and communication you are good to go.

After re-reading your comment, I see that you said or you just need great rotations....well that really means that you disagree with what you said in the first part of your comment.

You are not alone, shot blocking is considered an overrated art in the game of basketball and I don't know why.

Why do people think Roy Hibbert makes such a big impact on defense against teams like Miami? It's because Miami knnows if they drive there's a 7'1 monster waiting to block their shot.

Shot blocking alone does not indicate how good a player is on the defensive end, however it is a huge asset.

For example. One team has Roy Hibbert and Larry Sanders waiting in the paint. Another team has Joakim Noah and Marc Gasol waiting. Who will cause more reluctance of driving into the paint?

Most likely, it is the former duo. However, the latter duo is consisted of superior defensive players. That speaks volumes to how shot blocking should not be overlooked.

Jamiecballer
12-25-2013, 05:55 PM
I disagree I think you need one good defensive player at the PF or Center doesn't need to be just the Center.. or you just need great rotations from everyone Miami is an elite defensive team and they play Bosh at the 5 for a large number of minutes.. shot blocking to me is overrated
You are right shot blocking is very overrated. Shot contesting is hugely underrated.

People assume that one is an indicator of the other and it often is not.

Sactown
12-25-2013, 05:58 PM
You are right shot blocking is very overrated. Shot contesting is hugely underrated. absolutely good rotation and always contesting a shot and securing a rebound is what defense is about, great shot blockers are great at compensating for bad rotations though and are a great luxury but aren't a necessity for being a good defense

KnicksorBust
12-25-2013, 06:02 PM
I would rather have Al Jefferson than Omer Asik. Was that the question?

Paul Jeffrey
12-25-2013, 06:07 PM
absolutely good rotation and always contesting a shot and securing a rebound is what defense is about, great shot blockers are great at compensating for bad rotations though and are a great luxury but aren't a necessity for being a good defense

Shot blocking is not overrated does not mean shot blocking is what defense is about.

Shot blocking however is very useful. Having a rim protector is extremely helpful to a defense.

If shot blocking were really that useless, people wouldn't go for blocks then.

TheMightyHumph
12-25-2013, 06:08 PM
I can think of two star bigmen that won Titles while not being the defensive anchors of there teams.

Willis Reed and Moses Malone.

AddiX
12-25-2013, 06:12 PM
In a traditional sense, defense is a big part of a Center's game. However, whether or not Defense is their #1 job is based on the team they are playing on.

There isn't a team in the NBA doesn't want a defensive center. It's a centers #1 job on all teams, protect the rim.

Its not a mistake or coincidence how many teams have won rings behind dominating defensive centers.

Sactown
12-25-2013, 06:14 PM
Shot blocking is not overrated does not mean shot blocking is what defense is about.

Shot blocking however is very useful. Having a rim protector is extremely helpful to a defense.

If shot blocking were really that useless, people wouldn't go for blocks then.
Dude being overrated and useless are two different words... Shot blocking is overrated, it doesn't always result in a possession, nor does it always result in preventing a team from scoring, there are COUNTLESS numbers of time the weak side defender blocks the shot only to see his original score the basket.. Block shots don't always result in good defense, but always contesting a shot and putting a hand in your mans face, rotating, and getting the rebound, always results in good defense...

thekmp211
12-25-2013, 06:23 PM
dirk says what up.

Sactown
12-25-2013, 06:25 PM
In fact

San Antonio 25TH vs Tied for 7th
Chicago 15TH vs Tied for 3rd
Golden State 12TH vs Tied for 3rd
Clippers 23RD vs Tied for 7th
Phoenix 11TH vs Tied for 7th

All outside the top 10 for blocking shots, and all in the top 7 in opposing teams FG%, it clearly is possible to be a good to GREAT defensive team to have Average to HORRIBLE shot blocking numbers..

Shot blocking to me is a great equalizer, but definitely overrated

b@llhog24
12-25-2013, 06:26 PM
dirk says what up.

I'd wager to bet that Dirk's better than decent ;)

WadeKobe
12-25-2013, 06:26 PM
I would rather have Al Jefferson than Omer Asik. Was that the question?

Haha. No way.

thekmp211
12-25-2013, 06:46 PM
I'd wager to bet that Dirk's better than decent ;)

now you might just be on to something there.

in all honesty though he's sort of an outlier, and in almost all cases i would agree that your big man needs to be a defensive presence, if not an anchor. when they won the ring, dirk had developed into a decent defender, but played next to an excellent one in chandler. his shooting ability imo also negated some of his defensive shortcomings. we just probably won't see anything like dirk for a while, such a unique and awesome player.

Sactown
12-25-2013, 06:57 PM
now you might just be on to something there.

in all honesty though he's sort of an outlier, and in almost all cases i would agree that your big man needs to be a defensive presence, if not an anchor. when they won the ring, dirk had developed into a decent defender, but played next to an excellent one in chandler. his shooting ability imo also negated some of his defensive shortcomings. we just probably won't see anything like dirk for a while, such a unique and awesome player.

Also equally as important to Dirks offensive production, is the multitude of wing defenders the Mavs were able to throw at Lebron, they played Marion, Kidd, Brewer, Jackson

They also played a multiple of zones, and took advantage of the fact that Miami didn't have an offensive player in the post

Defense has been and will always be a team effort, and while one player can help anchor a defense, you need everyone to contribute to be good on that end of the floor.

KnicksorBust
12-25-2013, 09:19 PM
dirk says what up.

I'd wager to bet that Dirk's better than decent ;)

Dirk proves the OP bc he needed Tyson Chandler.

thekmp211
12-25-2013, 09:43 PM
Also equally as important to Dirks offensive production, is the multitude of wing defenders the Mavs were able to throw at Lebron, they played Marion, Kidd, Brewer, Jackson

They also played a multiple of zones, and took advantage of the fact that Miami didn't have an offensive player in the post

Defense has been and will always be a team effort, and while one player can help anchor a defense, you need everyone to contribute to be good on that end of the floor.

yeah. i always imagined that team as a basketball swiss army knife. had a player for every situation.


Dirk proves the OP bc he needed Tyson Chandler.

not really. i mean i understand what you're saying and chandler was critical, but let's not downplay how important dirk was to the team. not only is he an exception to this conversation, he's the only star in the past 20+ years to win a ring without an elite side-kick.

but generally speaking, i think you go with the defensive center in this day and age. the flow of the current nba doesn't really encourage post play. if i'm starting a franchise, who do i pick to play center right now, cousins or drummond? personality aside, i'm going drummond. don't get picky about that comparison, its the gist of it that matters. cousins is putting up stupid numbers and his team still sucks. drummond was a game changer last year when all he could do was jump and catch.

TheMightyHumph
12-25-2013, 10:16 PM
yeah. i always imagined that team as a basketball swiss army knife. had a player for every situation.



not really. i mean i understand what you're saying and chandler was critical, but let's not downplay how important dirk was to the team. not only is he an exception to this conversation, he's the only star in the past 20+ years to win a ring without an elite side-kick.

but generally speaking, i think you go with the defensive center in this day and age. the flow of the current nba doesn't really encourage post play. if i'm starting a franchise, who do i pick to play center right now, cousins or drummond? personality aside, i'm going drummond. don't get picky about that comparison, its the gist of it that matters. cousins is putting up stupid numbers and his team still sucks. drummond was a game changer last year when all he could do was jump and catch.

So you are willing to state that without Chandler's rim protection (you know, PFs blowing by Dirk) and Tyson's rebounding, Mavs still win the Title that season?

Please, an honest answer.

b@llhog24
12-25-2013, 10:52 PM
now you might just be on to something there.

in all honesty though he's sort of an outlier, and in almost all cases i would agree that your big man needs to be a defensive presence, if not an anchor. when they won the ring, dirk had developed into a decent defender, but played next to an excellent one in chandler. his shooting ability imo also negated some of his defensive shortcomings. we just probably won't see anything like dirk for a while, such a unique and awesome player.

+1. Love probably is the closest comparison as an elite stretch 4 but that's about it.


Dirk proves the OP bc he needed Tyson Chandler.

He's a superstar with or without Tyson.

b@llhog24
12-25-2013, 10:53 PM
So you are willing to state that without Chandler's rim protection (you know, PFs blowing by Dirk) and Tyson's rebounding, Mavs still win the Title that season?

Please, an honest answer.

How'd you seriously arrive at that conclusion after reading his post?

thekmp211
12-25-2013, 10:58 PM
So you are willing to state that without Chandler's rim protection (you know, PFs blowing by Dirk) and Tyson's rebounding, Mavs still win the Title that season?

Please, an honest answer.

how the hell would i know? probably not. and that wasn't the point i was trying to make.

Chrisclover
12-25-2013, 11:03 PM
It depends on what stars you are refering to. For a superstar, you have to be all -rounded offensively and defensively. For those who may just squeeze into the all star games rather than being supreme and indisputable,they will earn some fans but they cant be regarded as future HOFers. Their liability of defense or offense will be a stumbling block for them to go further.

Chronz
12-25-2013, 11:30 PM
I would rather have Al Jefferson than Omer Asik. Was that the question?

Pretty much yea. It seems odd to question that but I think its closer than any of us realize. Thoughts?

Sactown
12-25-2013, 11:47 PM
It depends on what stars you are refering to. For a superstar, you have to be all -rounded offensively and defensively. For those who may just squeeze into the all star games rather than being supreme and indisputable,they will earn some fans but they cant be regarded as future HOFers. Their liability of defense or offense will be a stumbling block for them to go further.

Eh that's not true, there are very few "well rounded" players in this league who do it on both sides of the court night in and night out.

I wouldn't consider

Melo or KD as elite defenders who guard the best guy on the other side of the court, or guys who run the point forward

Dwight, heavily limited on offense

Rose isn't an elite defender
Rondo isnt an elite scorer
Dirk isn't a great rebounder or defender
Harden is an awful defender
Love isn't a great defender
Blake is limited in the post and isn't an elite defender
LMA isn't a elite rebounder or defender

The list goes on, the only superstars who are really well roundeded are LeBron and Paul George and maybe CP3

Sactown
12-25-2013, 11:49 PM
Dirk proves the OP bc he needed Tyson Chandler. what are you talking about, Dirk is an example of having an offensive superstar and being able to add a role player to make them a championship contender (Tyson Chandler)

JasonJohnHorn
12-25-2013, 11:53 PM
Yes. There are a lot of guys who were HOFer bigs (power forwards or centers) who were solid rebounds and offensive players, but not 'anchors' on defense.


Karl Malone was a good defensive player, but he was not an anchor like Duncan or Garnett.
Barkley was a great rebounder and scorer, not a great defender.
Kevin Love: AMAZING rebounds and great scorer, not a great defender.

Nick O
12-26-2013, 12:13 AM
.

Sactown
12-26-2013, 12:21 AM
Al Jefferson is the only big man i can think of whos a poor defender but i think could still make a positive impact on a team. besides that its like having a good hitting catcher in baseball who cant call a game.

Edit. Dirk aswell. but hes not abysmal on defence
You really think DeMarcus Cousins, Kevin Love, LMA, Blake Griffin all can't have a positive impact???? Really

Nick O
12-26-2013, 12:26 AM
You really think DeMarcus Cousins, Kevin Love, LMA, Blake Griffin all can't have a positive impact???? Really

yaaaaaa i answered that pretty quickly my bad. kevin love is probably the best example... i wouldnt call blake or LMA horrible by any means though

Sactown
12-26-2013, 12:28 AM
yaaaaaa i answered that pretty quickly my bad. kevin love is probably the best example... i wouldnt call blake or LMA horrible by any means though
Not horrible, but definitely not big men who anchor a defense, Robin Lopez is the anchor for Portland and Deandre Jordan for the Clips, Cousins isn't a horrible defender either, he just is paired with a poor defender at PF and the worst backcourt defenders in the league lol.. KLove doesn't really have a shot blocking presence next to him either...

Nick O
12-26-2013, 12:37 AM
Not horrible, but definitely not big men who anchor a defense, Robin Lopez is the anchor for Portland and Deandre Jordan for the Clips, Cousins isn't a horrible defender either, he just is paired with a poor defender at PF and the worst backcourt defenders in the league lol.. KLove doesn't really have a shot blocking presence next to him either...

well I would put kevin love as the poster child of this thread. but to be a "star" big man do you think they need to have some sort of team success? because then Cousins and Klove havnt exactly had that. not their faults but still. Dirk is currently the only medicoreish defensive big man i can think of at the moment who has had major success team wise. Blake should too but he and DJordan compliment eachother well. even Jefferson really hasnt had much success. 2 playoff appearances i believe? it seems like most great teams have strong defensive big men. at least above average as with the Heat Bosh has really improved his defense

IndyRealist
12-26-2013, 12:37 AM
^^^^ shooting efficiency does not come before rim protection, that's crazy. rim protection is the single most important attribute a big can bring to the game. usually bigs are efficient but ill take a big that scores 9 points on 45% shooting if he protects the rim like Larry Sanders. You can get scoring from all the other positions but a C to anchor the defense is way more valuable. Look at Javale, his FG% is solid but his rim protection is awful, that's why I don't like him on my Nuggs.
Unless you have a Lebron or Durant, it's hard to get that same level of shooting efficiency that you'd get from an offensive big man who gets the majority of his shots at the rim. Not saying you can't, but when you have an offensively deficient big, you need high volume, high efficiency wings. And those wing players would end up being your stars.

Sactown
12-26-2013, 12:42 AM
well I would put kevin love as the poster child of this thread. but to be a "star" big man do you think they need to have some sort of team success? because then Cousins and Klove havnt exactly had that. not their faults but still. Dirk is currently the only medicoreish defensive big man i can think of at the moment who has had major success team wise. Blake should too but he and DJordan compliment eachother well. even Jefferson really hasnt had much success. 2 playoff appearances i believe? it seems like most great teams have strong defensive big men. at least above average as with the Heat Bosh has really improved his defense
Shaq, Dirk, Bosh, Pau Gasol,
All offensive first big who have won championships in the last 14 years (10 of 14)

The other Four Rings

Tim Duncan , Sheed, KG were the best big men, all three did in on both sides of the court

Nick O
12-26-2013, 12:47 AM
Shaq, Dirk, Bosh, Pau Gasol,
All offensive first big who have won championships in the last 14 years (10 of 14)

The other Four Rings

Tim Duncan , Sheed, KG were the best big men, all three did in on both sides of the court

Shaq? not an amazing defender but still a 3 time all defensive team. Pau Gasol ill give but he had Bynum with him who picked up a little bit of the slack. and bosh is heavily improved defensively. it really just seems like the MAvs were the only team without very strong big men

Sactown
12-26-2013, 12:53 AM
Shaq? not an amazing defender but still a 3 time all defensive team. Pau Gasol ill give but he had Bynum with him who picked up a little bit of the slack. and bosh is heavily improved defensively. it really just seems like the MAvs were the only team without very strong big men
Shaq was still an offensive first force, he was a good man defender because of his size, but was a horrible PNR defender, the Lakers won a title while ranked 21st in DRTG one season in fact you easily could make the argument that. Team needs an offensive minded big to win a championship

As I've stated in the last 14 years each team that has won it all has an all star caliber big on the offensive end.

beasted86
12-26-2013, 12:56 AM
I don't feel any franchise player regardless of position should be a bad defender.

A true franchise player should be able to impact the game in some way at all times... so that has to include defense. If their shot isn't falling they should be able to defend, pass, rebound, motivate, etc.

Sactown
12-26-2013, 01:01 AM
Also not having an elite defensive big can be hidden with great rotations and every player simple giving the effort in contesting shots and getting rebounds.. An example is Charlotte this season.. They added Al Jefferson and offensive minded big man, but simply from the coach asserting a defensive approach the team has gone from a horrendous defensive team (27th in opponent FG%) to a fantastic defensive team (3rd in Opponent FG%) simply because the team bought into the coaches game plan... In the playoffs you can't hide the fact that you have no interior offensive presence... Obviously offensive dominant players hold more value and are harder to come by.

Sactown
12-26-2013, 01:03 AM
I don't feel any franchise player regardless of position should be a bad defender.

A true franchise player should be able to impact the game in some way at all times... so that has to include defense. If their shot isn't falling they should be able to defend, pass, rebound, motivate, etc.

There's a difference from being a bad defender, and anchoring a defense, only two players in this league (in my mind) are elite on both ends of the court, Paul George and Lebron James...

jerellh528
12-26-2013, 01:07 AM
For a center order of importance in skills imo is:

defense
rebounding
post ups
passing
handles
shooting

Nick O
12-26-2013, 01:10 AM
I don't feel any franchise player regardless of position should be a bad defender.

A true franchise player should be able to impact the game in some way at all times... so that has to include defense. If their shot isn't falling they should be able to defend, pass, rebound, motivate, etc.

what do you think of the potential for curry to be a franchise player?

Shammyguy3
12-26-2013, 01:11 AM
Shooting is far more important than handles for a big, and it's also arguably more important than passing if the big can shoot from distance

jerellh528
12-26-2013, 01:11 AM
There's a difference from being a bad defender, and anchoring a defense, only two players in this league (in my mind) are elite on both ends of the court, Paul George and Lebron James...

I would say chris paul is pretty elite both ways for his position as well. Might even throw westbrook out there also, I know he's not as efficient as the other guys but I think his offense and defense is elite. Elite = top 5 of your position imo.

TheMightyHumph
12-26-2013, 01:19 AM
how the hell would i know? probably not. and that wasn't the point i was trying to make.

Okay, you answered my question.

Chronz
12-26-2013, 01:29 AM
Shaq was still an offensive first force, he was a good man defender because of his size, but was a horrible PNR defender, the Lakers won a title while ranked 21st in DRTG one season in fact you easily could make the argument that. Team needs an offensive minded big to win a championship

As I've stated in the last 14 years each team that has won it all has an all star caliber big on the offensive end.

Shaq was not a bad defender overall tho. His size intimidated opponents and when the biggest weakness defensively is that you give up the lowest% shot in the game (off the dribble mid range shots), you're pretty well off.

And the Lakers were defending champions and had the light switch factor going for them when they ranked so poorly, they were DOMINANT defensively in the post season, Lakers were worse defensively without Shaq.

Sactown
12-26-2013, 01:43 AM
Shaq was not a bad defender overall tho. His size intimidated opponents and when the biggest weakness defensively is that you give up the lowest% shot in the game (off the dribble mid range shots), you're pretty well off.

And the Lakers were defending champions and had the light switch factor going for them when they ranked so poorly, they were DOMINANT defensively in the post season, Lakers were worse defensively without Shaq.

Shaq was still a very poor PNR defender, Nd regardless if you would like to add him to the "two way elite players" you'll receive no argument, fact remains it's much more difficult to win a championship without an offensive all star in the post than without a defensive one.. you can have a top 10 defense in the NBA without an elite defender in the post, hard to win a championship without getting offensive production from the post..

DreamShaker
12-26-2013, 02:07 AM
You need a guy who can protect the rim. So if one big can't, but is a great offensive player and rebounder, that guy can win it all. One bad example now is Love and Pek. Those guys are a horrible fit on D together and Love puts up big stats put his team stinks. Pair Love even with a guy like Asik, and you got a winning team. You need balance.

Raps08-09 Champ
12-26-2013, 02:13 AM
Since you said "score decently and not elite", then no.

I don't think you'd have a franchise player at any position where they can't defend and aren't an elite scorer.

Chronz
12-26-2013, 02:26 AM
Shaq was still a very poor PNR defender, Nd regardless if you would like to add him to the "two way elite players" you'll receive no argument, fact remains it's much more difficult to win a championship without an offensive all star in the post than without a defensive one.. you can have a top 10 defense in the NBA without an elite defender in the post, hard to win a championship without getting offensive production from the post..

Good point. Still dont see the point of mentioning Shaq's defensive weaknesses when he was still a good defender for the most part and great when motivated. All of the years hes sucked defensively were the years he didn't win it all, so it kinda works both ways.

Sactown
12-26-2013, 02:37 AM
Good point. Still dont see the point of mentioning Shaq's defensive weaknesses when he was still a good defender for the most part and great when motivated. All of the years hes sucked defensively were the years he didn't win it all, so it kinda works both ways.

Dude point is, even with Shaqs inability to guard the PNR, the lakers ability to rotate and play great team defense is why they were able to maintain an elite defense with a pretty big defensive flaw...

Great defensive players can look poor if there teammates are unable to contain penetration and rotate

Average defenders can look great if their teammates can contain penetration and rotate..

You can cover individuals defensive weaknesses with great team defense.. You can't do the same on the offensive end if your post players can't score.. There's no covering that weakness up.

Kevin Durant can hit all the threes he wants and make elite level entry passes.. Kendrick Perkins is still going to miss that hook shot in the post lol..

Nick O
12-26-2013, 02:52 AM
Shaq was just too big to be a good PNR guy aha but one on one his size made it hell for his opponents. and the fact that he made a couple nba defensive teams shows that he was most certainly a strong defender.

Chronz
12-26-2013, 02:53 AM
Dude point is, even with Shaqs inability to guard the PNR, the lakers ability to rotate and play great team defense is why they were able to maintain an elite defense with a pretty big defensive flaw...
Except its not a pretty big defensive flaw because its more than compensated for by his all around defensive contributions. Again, his biggest weakness was that he was poor at allowing the lowest% shot in basketball. He was still a good to great defensive player. Its not like the Lakers were great defensively when he wasn't out there so Im not seeing the point of mentioning rotations and schemes, those very same schemes suffered without Shaq.


Great defensive players can look poor if there teammates are unable to contain penetration and rotate
I dont know about that one, great defensive players can stand out more visibly when surrounded by poor defenders because the impact can be felt when hes not out there covering for their weaknesses.


You can cover individuals defensive weaknesses with great team defense.. You can't do the same on the offensive end if your post players can't score.. There's no covering that weakness up.
Its the degree to which you have to mask weaknesses is what determines the individual defenders value tho. You take that same scheme and replace the liability with a great defender and you will go from being a good defense to an elite one.


Kevin Durant can hit all the threes he wants and make elite level entry passes.. Kendrick Perkins is still going to miss that hook shot in the post lol..
Not getting the comp.

kblo247
12-26-2013, 10:09 PM
Super? no
All? yes

kblo247
12-26-2013, 10:12 PM
Shaq was just too big to be a good PNR guy aha but one on one his size made it hell for his opponents. and the fact that he made a couple nba defensive teams shows that he was most certainly a strong defender.

Nah he can defend it. He did in the 00 run. Check back in the 03 game where the lakers come back from down 30 vs Dallas, as he showed. He just got lazy and fat, but when Shaq cared he could play elite d

Sadds The Gr8
12-26-2013, 10:35 PM
I've always preferred a defensive C over Offensive

FOBolous
12-26-2013, 11:05 PM
a C that can't play D is like a PG that can't pass. Look at Nate Robinson and how he get bounced around.

OlivaThor
12-27-2013, 09:34 AM
Shaq was just too big to be a good PNR guy aha but one on one his size made it hell for his opponents. and the fact that he made a couple nba defensive teams shows that he was most certainly a strong defender.

Nba defensive teams are joke