Author Topic: Defense wins championships?  (Read 6343 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2010, 02:55:13 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Defense is required to win championships, but a truly great defensive team with an unreliable offense won't get it done.

We all learned that the hard way this year.

The Lakers, while a very solid defensive team, couldn't hold a candle to the Celtics' D when it was running at full steam this year.  The secret to the Lakers' success is that they play very solid defense while also having a fairly unstoppable offense. 

Even against the Celtics, it was impossible to stop the Lakers from finding a scoring groove for a whole game, because they simply have too much talent on the team - plus, they also earned themselves way more possessions through their rebounding.

At the end of the day, you need to be able to score more points than your opponent.  The Celtics couldn't hold leads when it mattered most because their offense was unreliable, especially in crunch time situations.  The fact that they came within minutes of the title just shows you how potent truly great defense can be. 


  If a team doesn't make it to the finals or gets to the finals and isn't really competitive, you can say they didn't win the title because of some fatal flaw. When you lose a starter to injury in game 6 of the finals and lose game 7 by 4 points then the only reason you lost is bad luck. And we only lost a late lead in one game of the finals. We were good enough to win the title despite our rebounding woes. We were good enough to win the title despite our scoring droughts. We were good enough to win the title despite Rondo's outside shooting. We just didn't.

The only team I can say for sure was good enough to win it all this year was the Lakers, and they had an unstoppable (though not explosive) offense paired with very solid defense.

The Celtics came close, but they lost because they couldn't rebound and they couldn't score in crunch time, causing them to lose leads.  The first of those things could be attributed to Perkins' absence.  The second couldn't - the C's were plagued by 4th quarter collapses and stagnant offense all year long, and ultimately it was the thing that did them in.

  First of all, the Lakers didn't have an unstoppable offense. The team that scored 110 a game on 49% shooting vs the Jazz and 114 a game on 50% shooting vs the Suns scored 91 a game on 42% shooting vs the Celts. Secondly, we only lost one lead in crunch time vs the Lakers. If it happened 2-3 times you might have a point but you don't. The fact that it happeded a lot in March and only 2-3 times in twenty some playoff games means it *wasn't* a problem that plagued the Celts in the postseason. They also scored plenty of points in crunch time in their 3 wins, just like they did throughout the playoffs.

 

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2010, 03:01:26 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
I still say health is a huge factor people don't talk about enough.

Yes, you can be healthy and horrible but if you are a contender(top 8 teams or so) being healthy can go a long way towards getting you farther into the playoffs.

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2010, 03:53:12 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20090
  • Tommy Points: 1331
37 FTAs in the second half won this championship that an our anemic offense in the 4th.

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2010, 04:15:06 PM »

Offline TitleMaster

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 980
  • Tommy Points: 117
I consider rebounding to be a part of a team's defenses.

In game 7, we were clearly out manned on the boards, by the Lakers, and thus, the contest went down to the refs and the free throw disparity.

Thus, this year, with the two O'Neils, that should no longer be an issue.

As for killer offense, this is where my Hakeem vs Ewing vs King vs Jordan thread comes into play.

If one's on a great defensive squad, only one alpha male scorer is required. This is why the Bulls had a 90s dynasty and not the Ewing Knicks. Despite the Knicks having a similar defensive intensity as the Bulls, Ewing was not the offensive alpha male and clearly had lapses during crunch time. Thus, replace him with Hakeem, and you get a championship squad, no problems. Now, looking back further in time, Bernard King was the Knick's alpha male scorer but was clearly not on a defensive squad to even pose a serious challenge to the 80s Celtics. King got his scoring numbers but the Celtics won the series. No one on the Celts could challenge King but team defense won it, every time.

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2010, 04:25:32 PM »

Offline bdm860

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6135
  • Tommy Points: 4624
"Defense wins championships"

This will most likely come as a surprise to people that i would challenge that statement after saying that well known mantra for what 3-4 years now? but is that statement truthfull?

No it isnt, because it goes against logic! a logic that Von Wafer stated in an interview a few days ago and was imediately attacked on this board for that statement.

"I think I’m an okay defender. The name of the game is putting more points up on the board than the other team.”

Now that got the attention of alot of posters on this board as a sign of him putting a higher priority on offense than defense but is he.... wrong? is his statement untruthfull? no it isnt because the winner of games is determained by offensive productivity.

We have become so accustomed to saying "defense wins championships" that we just take it as the holy word of basketball without thinking it though but on a logical plane that statement is utter nonsense and worst of all we all use it as a finality to any discussion that would challenge any notion that goes against defense.


I think the problem here is it's just all in the way it is said.  Example, which is statement is true (or more true):

"You win if you score more points than the other team"
or
"You win if you hold the other team to fewer points"

It's the same thing, just the way you say it.  Just one has an offensive connotation, and the other has a defensive connotation.


All I know is I'd bet for a "defensive minded" team over an "offensive minded" team every time.  I'd take the Pistons or Spurs over the 2000's or the Celtics of the last few years over the prime Suns or Warriors any day.

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2010, 05:11:27 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
I consider rebounding to be a part of a team's defenses.

In game 7, we were clearly out manned on the boards, by the Lakers, and thus, the contest went down to the refs and the free throw disparity.

Thus, this year, with the two O'Neils, that should no longer be an issue.

As for killer offense, this is where my Hakeem vs Ewing vs King vs Jordan thread comes into play.

If one's on a great defensive squad, only one alpha male scorer is required. This is why the Bulls had a 90s dynasty and not the Ewing Knicks. Despite the Knicks having a similar defensive intensity as the Bulls, Ewing was not the offensive alpha male and clearly had lapses during crunch time. Thus, replace him with Hakeem, and you get a championship squad, no problems. Now, looking back further in time, Bernard King was the Knick's alpha male scorer but was clearly not on a defensive squad to even pose a serious challenge to the 80s Celtics. King got his scoring numbers but the Celtics won the series. No one on the Celts could challenge King but team defense won it, every time.
I don't get the Hakeem replacing Ewing equals Knicks championship. The ONLY reason Hakeem has two rings is because Jordan was forced to leave the league because of his gambling problems.(Ooops, I mean because MJ wanted to play baseball. Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry David Stern for the slip.)

Jordan doesn't take his sabbatical and he has 8 rings, Hakeem has none, and suddenly there is not that great difference in the minds of people between the games of Ewing and Hakeem. I mean between 1989-90 and 1996-7 Ewing was pretty solid offensive force averaging about 24-25 PPG for that time period.

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2010, 11:28:05 PM »

Offline TitleMaster

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 980
  • Tommy Points: 117
Quote
I don't get the Hakeem replacing Ewing equals Knicks championship. The ONLY reason Hakeem has two rings is because Jordan was forced to leave the league because of his gambling problems.(Ooops, I mean because MJ wanted to play baseball. Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry David Stern for the slip.)

Jordan doesn't take his sabbatical and he has 8 rings, Hakeem has none, and suddenly there is not that great difference in the minds of people between the games of Ewing and Hakeem. I mean between 1989-90 and 1996-7 Ewing was pretty solid offensive force averaging about 24-25 PPG for that time period.

A lie. Ewing was a classic choke artist, the original Chris Webber, the former Georgetown star who folds under pressure.
Remember what Joseph Goebbels once said, a lie repeated and repeated, becomes the truth. That's the cult of Michael Jordan's legacy.

Hakeem held a so-called near equal to 38 FG% in the '94 finals. Wow! such amazing parity between the two centers when Olajuwon was over 50% and carrying a majority of both the defense and offense for his squad.

I call BS on this theme. This is classic "Jordan is alpha male scorer/defender and needs no defensive teammates to win titles" propaganda. I've heard it for the past fifteen years, I don't buy it anymore. The Bulls were a fine defensive team along with the Knicks and the Heat.

Ewing, in comparison, is an inferior all star franchise player to Hakeem. Most Knicks-Bulls series went the full 7 games. The Knicks lost because Ewing was a choker and not one who could deliver during crunch time. Replace that with Hakeem and the Knicks win. Can anyone on the Bull's front line (Cartwright, Grant, or Pippen) match up with the Dream?


Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2010, 12:15:53 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
Quote
I don't get the Hakeem replacing Ewing equals Knicks championship. The ONLY reason Hakeem has two rings is because Jordan was forced to leave the league because of his gambling problems.(Ooops, I mean because MJ wanted to play baseball. Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry David Stern for the slip.)

Jordan doesn't take his sabbatical and he has 8 rings, Hakeem has none, and suddenly there is not that great difference in the minds of people between the games of Ewing and Hakeem. I mean between 1989-90 and 1996-7 Ewing was pretty solid offensive force averaging about 24-25 PPG for that time period.

A lie. Ewing was a classic choke artist, the original Chris Webber, the former Georgetown star who folds under pressure.
Remember what Joseph Goebbels once said, a lie repeated and repeated, becomes the truth. That's the cult of Michael Jordan's legacy.

Hakeem held a so-called near equal to 38 FG% in the '94 finals. Wow! such amazing parity between the two centers when Olajuwon was over 50% and carrying a majority of both the defense and offense for his squad.

I call BS on this theme. This is classic "Jordan is alpha male scorer/defender and needs no defensive teammates to win titles" propaganda. I've heard it for the past fifteen years, I don't buy it anymore. The Bulls were a fine defensive team along with the Knicks and the Heat.

Ewing, in comparison, is an inferior all star franchise player to Hakeem. Most Knicks-Bulls series went the full 7 games. The Knicks lost because Ewing was a choker and not one who could deliver during crunch time. Replace that with Hakeem and the Knicks win. Can anyone on the Bull's front line (Cartwright, Grant, or Pippen) match up with the Dream?



Nope.

Hakeem surely would've fouled them out.

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2010, 12:22:02 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
There was simply no Center in NBA history with the skillset of Hakeem Olajuwon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4uXlRGAF0&feature=related

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2010, 04:41:56 AM »

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6987
  • Tommy Points: 411
Quote
I don't get the Hakeem replacing Ewing equals Knicks championship. The ONLY reason Hakeem has two rings is because Jordan was forced to leave the league because of his gambling problems.(Ooops, I mean because MJ wanted to play baseball. Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry David Stern for the slip.)

Jordan doesn't take his sabbatical and he has 8 rings, Hakeem has none, and suddenly there is not that great difference in the minds of people between the games of Ewing and Hakeem. I mean between 1989-90 and 1996-7 Ewing was pretty solid offensive force averaging about 24-25 PPG for that time period.

A lie. Ewing was a classic choke artist, the original Chris Webber, the former Georgetown star who folds under pressure.
Remember what Joseph Goebbels once said, a lie repeated and repeated, becomes the truth. That's the cult of Michael Jordan's legacy.

Hakeem held a so-called near equal to 38 FG% in the '94 finals. Wow! such amazing parity between the two centers when Olajuwon was over 50% and carrying a majority of both the defense and offense for his squad.

I call BS on this theme. This is classic "Jordan is alpha male scorer/defender and needs no defensive teammates to win titles" propaganda. I've heard it for the past fifteen years, I don't buy it anymore. The Bulls were a fine defensive team along with the Knicks and the Heat.

Ewing, in comparison, is an inferior all star franchise player to Hakeem. Most Knicks-Bulls series went the full 7 games. The Knicks lost because Ewing was a choker and not one who could deliver during crunch time. Replace that with Hakeem and the Knicks win. Can anyone on the Bull's front line (Cartwright, Grant, or Pippen) match up with the Dream?



while i agree that Hakeem > Ewing, i do think that if Jordan had not left the league, the Bulls could've realistically won 7-8 rings. let's face it, they were a dynasty. I mean, they were a great team, but they couldn't have won as many championships as they did without MJ.



- LilRip
- LilRip

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #25 on: August 14, 2010, 07:20:57 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20090
  • Tommy Points: 1331
They were definitely a dynasty albeit one who benefitted from a weak league diluted through expansion.  That isn't their fault they still dominated.  I hated MJ and I hated the bulls.

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #26 on: August 14, 2010, 03:20:05 PM »

Offline TitleMaster

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 980
  • Tommy Points: 117
Quote
They were definitely a dynasty albeit one who benefited from a weak league diluted through expansion.  That isn't their fault they still dominated.

The point of the argument isn't about the 90s vs the 80s per se, it's about the lies & mythology around a one man cult of personality team.

I do agree that unlike the 80s, it was highly unlikely for a more diluted 90s squad to have a combination of Moses Malone, Andrew Toney, and Dr J all playing at their best (at least for Erving's last good year, before his decline) for a couple of seasons together. Yes, no 90s team was like that.

But the good teams of the 90s were those with great defensive squads, which were the Bulls, Knicks, and Heat. Remember, when Jordan was out in '94, a fathom foul on Pippen was the primary reason why the Bulls didn't advance in that round. The Bulls were a fine defensive team for that decade.

Now, once you have the defensive team framework in place, what's the difference? ... the alpha male scorer/defender, in which each team had at most, one.

For the Knicks, that person was suppose to be Ewing, however, having seen numerous Knicks vs { opponent } games, what's kinda obvious is that like his other Georgetown alumni, Chris Webber, he disappears a lot during the final quarters of key games. As a Knick's coach, I'd be afraid if the ball was in Ewing hand's, during crunch time.

Here's how those Knicks-Bulls series ends with Olajuwon, from other thread ...

Quote
The Clock is winding down, the final possession of Game 6, Hakeem's got the ball.
Cartwright is on him.
He fakes, then he spins.
Grant and Pippen shore up both sides, another fake, a near foul by the Dream.
Starks and Mason break free. The Dream bullets the pass to Starks.
Starks goes for the pull up jumper.
It's no good.
But wait ...
Tipped in by Olajuwon!
The New York Knicks win the series.
It's all over... Hakeem Olajuwon has led his men to the NBA Finals.

And yes, the above is still a Knicks team effort though the alpha male elevates his squad to an even greater outcome. This is where Ewing would fumble it, and the NY press would try to hide it for the weeks ahead.

Today, we're still struggling with myth of the one man alpha male scorer/defender team. In a few years, people will forget Pau Gasol's efforts in the 2010 finals and start to say that Kobe singlehandedly defeated the Celtics. Unfortunately, Stern wants this to occur because for him, it's always about the next MJ and not the team sport of basketball where yes, you have supermen but at the same time, you also have super teams.
 

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2010, 03:43:49 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
For someone who claims to have such knowledge of this era to NOT know that Chris Webber was a member of the Fab Five that went to Michigan and was actually famous for costing Michigan a national championship by calling a timeout they didn't have, making it difficult to not properly remember where he went to school, you lose a lot of credence in what you have to say here by calling him a Georgetown alum.

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2010, 03:59:36 PM »

Offline soap07

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1557
  • Tommy Points: 145
Quote
Yes, you can be healthy and horrible but if you are a contender(top 8 teams or so) being healthy can go a long way towards getting you farther into the playoffs.

2008 was a perfect example of this, no question. That 08' Celts squad was remarkably healthy throughout the year.

Re: Defense wins championships?
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2010, 06:50:35 PM »

Offline TitleMaster

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 980
  • Tommy Points: 117
Quote
making it difficult to not properly remember where he went to school

Yes, it's a Mutombo-lexia, where Mutombo and Webber get swapped from time to time.