The spread is definitely around 60/40 at best, there's no historical evidence of the spread being as extreme as 70/30 unless you only gawk at box scores. Out of the four you mentioned, only Harden fits your criteria (I'm pretty baffled at you constantly railing on Curry's defence tbh, your beloved Magic Johnson would be an ice cream cone if Curry was atrocious on defence), so I don't see many cases of an MVP calibre player being garbage defensively.
Offense is far more important than defense. I'd say at least 60/40 if not more like 70/30. It is why guys like Curry, Harden, Irving, IT4 (in Boston), etc. can be MVP caliber players despite being atrocious on defense. That isn't to say defense isn't important, but I'm taking the offensive beast 10 out of 10 times over the defensive beast (assuming near equal talent levels and no clearly better roster fit).
I really don't understand this take when you've been pumping up Tatum due to his excellence in the +/- family of metrics, they mostly agree that offence isn't that much more valuable than defence (it's more valuable than defence, but the gap is like 6 points to 5 according to RAPM), ntm that a big argument for Tatum being an All-Star calibre wing this season is his incredible defensive +/- stats in a free safety role.
Zach Lowe just had Young in over Tatum on his all-star team. I"m so very mad about him getting in over Tatum/Brown even when it hasn't happened yet. (and might not happen given coaches vote reserves)Hard to be mad when Young is so statistically brilliant. I mean 29.2 p, 8.6 a, 4.7 r, 1.2 s with a TS% of 59.4. Obviously a sieve on defense, but offense is just so much more important and Young is absolutely a brilliant offensive player.
I'd be somewhat less mad about Beal, and even more mad about Lavine.
Because when you can get the offensive engine of the second worst offense in the league in the all-star game you have to do it.
But yes I think Young is good enough to make the All-Star team, he's one of the best non MVP PGs on offence right now imo (strong box and non-box stats to go along with positive stuff from the eye test) and that helps him grade out as an All-Star (albeit borderline due to how much his defence sucks) in my eyes.
And I'd do the same if offence was just as portable as defence, your assumption ignores the reality of both skills (defence fits on any kind of team while offence really doesn't). But yes offence is more valuable than defence, the gap is just not as much as you'd like to believe.
The following people have won MVP's in the last 20 years: Harden, Westbrook, Curry x2, Rose, Dirk, Nash x2, Iverson. Those guys all have varying degrees of defensive prowess (or lack thereof), but they are all significantly better offensive players then they were defensive players. Sure guys like Antetokounmpo, Durant, James, Bryant, Garnett, Duncan, and O'Neal are elite level defenders, but they were also as good or better offensively.
So when I say offense is significantly more important to defense, that is what I'm talking about. The great defenders, like Rudy Gobert, while they compete and win DPOY awards don't get anywhere near the MVP award because they offensively are poor and offense matters.
This is also true if you look at the 3 best players on NBA champions. They by and large have one of the uber players at the top (i.e. Lebron, Durant, Duncan, Bryant, etc.), but the other 2 top players are almost always more offensively oriented players. The last time a NBA champion had an elite defensive player in their top 3 (that wasn't also elite offensively) win a NBA title was the first Warriors (Green who was an excellent secondary offensive player with his passing) and their best player Curry who obviously is not one of those uber elite offensive and defensive players (Green was 4th best on the 2 most recent Warriors titles). Before the Warriors the last time a team had one of those defensive oriented players in their top 3 was Tyson Chandler on the Mavs and before that was the Pistons with Ben Wallace (who may have in fact been their best player and are clearly an exception to all forms of title teams).
So when I say things like offense is far more important to winning than defense, I'm just going off of the traditional mold of who wins NBA championship and who wins the MVP. Those 2 things tell you offense matters far more than defense. The best teams and the best players are both elite on offense and defense, but if you could only have one, take offense because at the end of the day you win when you score more than the other team and it is easier to score than to stop someone else from scoring.