It's just that offense wins basketball games

[Eja117]

You're not going to win a game with a bunch of Marcus Smarts. Every player on the team could be a Marcus Smart and you won't make the playoffs. 

If you want to say "It takes balance" fine. But then in that case we have to admit Marcus isn't a championship type player because he has no balance.

IT and Avery have balance. They are much better.

You're not gonna win with a bunch of James Harden's, either...

Every player doesn't need to be balanced, but your team overall needs balance. You can have one-dimensional role players (like Shumpert on the Cavs), but you need a good balance overall

A game with all Hardens would be.....an all star game and I hate watching those.

But a team of Hardens would beat the team of Smarts and even Smarts, Crowders, and Averys. And Durant would want to play with them more. (I think).

[dannyboy35]

If disagree to those who sat other teams would want the #3 and smart over #3 and Bradley. Bradley is a far superior defender even though he can't muscle up a forward. Smart so far cannot stay in front of point guards.

[BitterJim]

You're not going to win a game with a bunch of Marcus Smarts. Every player on the team could be a Marcus Smart and you won't make the playoffs. 

If you want to say "It takes balance" fine. But then in that case we have to admit Marcus isn't a championship type player because he has no balance.

IT and Avery have balance. They are much better.

You're not gonna win with a bunch of James Harden's, either...

Every player doesn't need to be balanced, but your team overall needs balance. You can have one-dimensional role players (like Shumpert on the Cavs), but you need a good balance overall

A game with all Hardens would be.....an all star game and I hate watching those.

But a team of Hardens would beat the team of Smarts and even Smarts, Crowders, and Averys. And Durant would want to play with them more. (I think).

They would beat a team full of Smarts, but that's not saying much lol

You need a balance, all of one is gonna lose guaranteed.

[mmmmm]

How many championship teams have had a defence outside top 10 metrics? And how many have had an offense outside the top 10 metrics?

That's the easiest way to answer this question simplistically

To further my earlier point...

http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nba/offense-and-defensive-efficiency-of-nba-champions.aspx

So does defense win championships? Based on the offensive and defensive efficiency of the teams playing in past ten NBA Finals, having an efficient defense is more important than an efficient offense.

This runs from 2002-2012 so it misses out the last few years. But in those years we've had Heat teams that pride themselves on defence, Spurs teams that do the same and a Golden State team that is near the top of both. So no extra evidence towards offense meaning more than defence.

Edit: Even better, someone on Reddit has done the analysis for the last 30 years

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/332bdu/does_offense_or_defense_win_championships_look_at/

The first comment after the reddit article has it dead right:  Point differential.  Ultimately, that's the most important and you need both to win.

I also think that one problem with both your study and the reddit one is that the recent surge towards usage of the 3PT shot has an effect on the equation.

When Curry takes a shot from 28 feet away, it is basically an un-defended shot.  Whether he makes it or not is completely dependent on his side of the offense vs defense equation.

If your opponent doesn't have guys who can make that shot at a 50%+ eFG rate, then your defense 'wins' by making them take that shot.  But if your opponent has the skill (like Curry) to make that shot at a high rate such that they don't even _try_ to get a closer shot, then they've taken your defense out of the equation.

It will be interesting to see how the game evolves to counter this.

[Vermont Green]

As many have said,  there is more than one way to skin the cat so to speak.  There are examples of good and just OK defenses that have won titles.  Usually the champion is at least pretty good in both but perhaps most importantly, had at least one really good "shot maker".

I know shot maker is not a measurable distinction but it refers to guys like Paul Pierce or Kobe or Wade or Dirk.  San Antonio never had single elite shot maker but between Parker, Duncan, and Manu, they always had options.

Golden State has perhaps the best shot maker I have ever seen play in Stephan Curry.  No one has figured out how to stop him these last few years.  They have other good offensive players that play off him and they have good enough defensive personnel to play sufficient team defense.

This is a really good team we are watching with a really good player on a really good run.  They have to beat a very different Cleveland team this time though.  LeBron is more than adequate as the "shot maker" and the team depth for CLE is there this time.  It will come down to JR Smith, Love, and Irving hitting the shots they need to hit more than second tier Warriors.  CLE should win in my opinion but I would not bet on this one.  (I thought OKC would win so shows you what I know).

[Fafnir]

San Antonio never had single elite shot maker but between Parker, Duncan, and Manu, they always had options.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read stuff like this. CRAZY PILLS.

[TheSundanceKid]

How many championship teams have had a defence outside top 10 metrics? And how many have had an offense outside the top 10 metrics?

That's the easiest way to answer this question simplistically

To further my earlier point...

http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nba/offense-and-defensive-efficiency-of-nba-champions.aspx

So does defense win championships? Based on the offensive and defensive efficiency of the teams playing in past ten NBA Finals, having an efficient defense is more important than an efficient offense.

This runs from 2002-2012 so it misses out the last few years. But in those years we've had Heat teams that pride themselves on defence, Spurs teams that do the same and a Golden State team that is near the top of both. So no extra evidence towards offense meaning more than defence.

Edit: Even better, someone on Reddit has done the analysis for the last 30 years

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/332bdu/does_offense_or_defense_win_championships_look_at/

The first comment after the reddit article has it dead right:  Point differential.  Ultimately, that's the most important and you need both to win.

I also think that one problem with both your study and the reddit one is that the recent surge towards usage of the 3PT shot has an effect on the equation.

When Curry takes a shot from 28 feet away, it is basically an un-defended shot.  Whether he makes it or not is completely dependent on his side of the offense vs defense equation.

If your opponent doesn't have guys who can make that shot at a 50%+ eFG rate, then your defense 'wins' by making them take that shot.  But if your opponent has the skill (like Curry) to make that shot at a high rate such that they don't even _try_ to get a closer shot, then they've taken your defense out of the equation.

It will be interesting to see how the game evolves to counter this.

Yeah, point differential is the ultimate. It was just a good illustration of why the OP is off base saying offense beats defense.

Curry is one of those elite players like Lebron who get what they want on the offensive end. The league in general can't do that. Also there are teams such as ourselves who have managed to contain guys like Curry quite well. Despite the enormous talent gap between the two teams we gave them a serious run for their money. I think the defence is evolving alongside the increase in three point shooting.

[PhoSita]

San Antonio never had single elite shot maker but between Parker, Duncan, and Manu, they always had options.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read stuff like this. CRAZY PILLS.

Amen.

[PickNRoll]

San Antonio never had single elite shot maker but between Parker, Duncan, and Manu, they always had options.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read stuff like this. CRAZY PILLS.

LOL!  Spurs trivia time.  Of the 5 NBA Champion Spurs teams, did they ever have fewer than 3 qualified (lots of attempts) 40% 3-point shooters.

I haven't looked yet, but I'll say NO!

[Ilikesports17]

San Antonio never had single elite shot maker but between Parker, Duncan, and Manu, they always had options.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read stuff like this. CRAZY PILLS.

LOL!  Spurs trivia time.  Of the 5 NBA Champion Spurs teams, did they ever have fewer than 3 qualified (lots of attempts) 40% 3-point shooters.

I haven't looked yet, but I'll say NO!

Only the 2014 champs had 3 40% shooters(fwiw I didnt round up, just scanned the rosters for 3pt %)

so 1/5

[ahonui06]

San Antonio never had single elite shot maker but between Parker, Duncan, and Manu, they always had options.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read stuff like this. CRAZY PILLS.

LOL!  Spurs trivia time.  Of the 5 NBA Champion Spurs teams, did they ever have fewer than 3 qualified (lots of attempts) 40% 3-point shooters.

I haven't looked yet, but I'll say NO!

1999 Spurs didn't have a single player at 40%. Highest was Mario Elie @ 37.4%.
2003 Spurs only had 1 qualifying players at 40%. Bruce Bowen at 44.1%.
2005 Spurs only had 2 qualifying players at 40%. Bruce Bowen at 40.3% and Beno Udrih at 40.8%.
2007 Spurs only had 1 qualifying player at 40%. Brent Barry at 44.6%.
2014 Spurs had 5 qualifying players at 40%. Marco Bellinelli at 43.0%, Boris Diaw at 40.2%, Danny Green at 41.5%, Patrick Mills at 42.5%, Matt Bonner at 42.9%

So basically just 1 season out of their 5 championship teams.

[PickNRoll]

San Antonio never had single elite shot maker but between Parker, Duncan, and Manu, they always had options.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read stuff like this. CRAZY PILLS.

LOL!  Spurs trivia time.  Of the 5 NBA Champion Spurs teams, did they ever have fewer than 3 qualified (lots of attempts) 40% 3-point shooters.

I haven't looked yet, but I'll say NO!

1999 Spurs didn't have a single player at 40%. Highest was Mario Elie @ 37.4%.
2003 Spurs only had 1 qualifying players at 40%. Bruce Bowen at 44.1%.
2005 Spurs only had 2 qualifying players at 40%. Bruce Bowen at 40.3% and Beno Udrih at 40.8%.
2007 Spurs only had 1 qualifying player at 40%. Brent Barry at 44.6%.
2014 Spurs had 5 qualifying players at 40%. Marco Bellinelli at 43.0%, Boris Diaw at 40.2%, Danny Green at 41.5%, Patrick Mills at 42.5%, Matt Bonner at 42.9%

So basically just 1 season out of their 5 championship teams.

Aww, that's surprising.  I guess I overshot it.  It feels like they always have a platoon of 3 point shooters.  Maybe that's a more recent development.

Bonner, Diaw, Mills, Belinelli, Green, Leonard, Neal, Horry, S Jackson, Jefferson, G. Hill... just off the top of my head.  Parker has been pretty good the last few seasons too, but I guess some of these guys aren't "elite".

[Vermont Green]

San Antonio never had single elite shot maker but between Parker, Duncan, and Manu, they always had options.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read stuff like this. CRAZY PILLS.

Amen.

I don't understand the issue with this.  Are you saying that San Antonio had an elite shot maker like Curry or LeBron or Durant?  My point is that San Antonio is an exception to the rule of needing a go to shot maker to win a title.  I don't believe they ever had that.  But Parker, Duncan, and Manu collectively were able to provide sufficient shot making capability for them to win.  Now they have added Leonard (kind of replacing Manu) and Aldridge (who kind of replaces Duncan) but overall, they still don't have a go to guy and the collective shot making of the old guys is not what it used to be (so no title for them this year).

[PhoSita]

When I read that I think you don't have a proper appreciation for tony,  Manu,  and Timmy.

I'd say in 2013 and 2014 it was more about their amazing ball movement and overall execution, but they still got excellent throwback games at key times from those three, plus Kawhi blossoming into a great two way player.

[The Oracle]

How anyone can be a Celtics fan and make this argument is beyond me.  Did you not just watch the C's win 48 games on the backs of their defense?  You don't win in any team sport without it.  Their has been a shift in favor of offense vs defense due to rule changes and the increased usage of the 3 point line but that still doesn't allow you to negate defense.