Building around two-way players vs. offensive centerpieces

[wafflzgod]

Would you rather build around a two-way player or an offensive centerpiece?

I feel like this question is more layered than simply saying one or the other. If Player A is probably not "good enough" to be a true championship level offensive centerpiece, I think Player B (a two-way player of a similar impact level) would be preferable just due to the fact that defensive impact "stacks" far easier than offensive impact. However, by laying the prerequisite that Player A is not "good enough" to be the championship level offensive centerpiece, I don't think you'd want to "build around" either of these players. So, as a supplementary player/2nd option or such, a two-way player would be preferable in most situations, in my opinion.

However, when evaluating all-time great players, the reverse might be true. If a player is one of the very best (a la Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant, Steph Curry) is one of the very best offensive centerpieces in history, and clearly "good enough" to be a true championship level offensive centerpiece, is it might be easier to construct a championship roster with them as the best player than all-time two-way guys (a la Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Giannis Ant.)? I think the answer is fuzzy, not sure if I have a definitive answer.

But I know many people do believe building around ATG offensive #1s > ATG two-way guys. And for those who think that, does that impact your comparison/evaluations of peak Magic/Kobe/Steph/etc vs. peak Duncan/KG/Giannis/etc.?

[penbeast0]

It also seems somewhat era dependent. Before they rewrote the rules and the pace and space revolution, you needed that great defensive anchor generally speaking. A one way defensive player like Bill Russell or Lakers era Wilt Chamberlain seems more valuable than either a great 2 way player other than possibly Mikan or Kareem or a great offensive engine like Oscar Robertson up until the 80s at least and possibly beyond.

[lessthanjake]

This is a bit of a cheating answer, but honestly I think the answer really is to think about what other pieces you have and therefore what balances out your team the most. If you’ve got a great defensive player like Draymond Green, then you’re better off with an offensive centerpiece. If you’ve got a great offensive player like Manu Ginobili, then you’re better off with a two-way star.

[165bows]

Damn thought this was going to be about undrafted guys.

[WintaSoldier1]

Keeping it relatively short:

If it’s a Big, 2- Way 1000%.

Bigs are the “Floor” of the team; They set the standard of how good your team will be based on offensive and defensive presence alone. Best bigs take up more attention on both ends of the floor, hard to find ways to offset and negate the lack of/negative impact defensively offensive center piece bigs.

If it’s a Guard/Wing, depends on the type of shots they’re creating. In general if my wing/guard gets the majority of their points by working inside the arc, I want them to be 2 Way Players.

If a lot of their offensive game is predicated on shooting 3s to stretch defenses out, I want them to more offensive Orientation.

Willing to give further in-depth answers if notified for such

[DraymondGold]

Me personally, I tend to evaluate players not as one-way players or two-way players, but as one, two, or three-way players. What do I mean by that?

To me, there are three broad ways a player can impact the game:
1. Defense. This one is obvious. How is a player as a man defender and team defender? Do they offer rim protection, are they good communicators, do they have good positioning, are they good in passing lanes or at the nail, do they provide defensive rebounding?
2. Scoring. Here, rather than having my second category be offense, I divide offense into scoring and creation. For scoring, what is their volume and efficiency? Are they able at score at al three levels? How do they get into their scoring attempts: is it in isolation, pick and roll, transition, off-ball play, etc.?
3. Creation. The simplest version of creation is passing. But there's other forms of creation that often go unappreciated. Are you a good offensive communicator and floor general? Do you have scoring gravity and set screens? Even more subtly, do you have good off ball movement to create scoring opportunities for teammates and create passing opportunities for teammates?

There's facets of the game you can point out that are missed, but I would argue these are the three broadest areas a player can have on-court impact.

To get to the question, if my offensive centerpiece is only good in one of the two offensive areas, if they're only good creators without the scoring or vice versa, then I go for a two way player. Because 2/3 > 1/3. But that's not because of anything unique about defense compared to scoring or creation. To me, that's just because influencing the game in 2/3 of these areas is better than influencing the game in 1/3. (assuming we know nothing else about the player).

Most MVP players do not have significant impact in all three areas. Most 'two way players' are really only good in 2/3 of these areas (usually Defense and Scoring, but not Creation). Most true offensive centerpieces are good in 2/3 areas (Scoring and Creation, but not Defense). In the abstract, without any more information, I don't really care which 2/3 areas of the game you influence.

But as others have said, there are contextual factors that are significant.
1. What era are you playing in? Defense is more valuable back in the day (e.g. by the 60s, big man defense is likely the most important category). Offense is more valuable today.

2. How bad are you in your third category? Are you just neutral or are you significantly below average?

3. Relatedly, what position do you play? A big man with significantly negative defense is a lot more limiting as a team than a guard with negative difference.

4. What does the rest of your team look like?

Overall, I don't think there's any true formula (at least at this high of a level) to determine what you'd prefer between two imperfect archetypes (a two-way defender and scorer without creation vs scorer and creator without defense). Players develop value in different areas of the game. Their total value comes from their impact across all those areas of the game, plus(!) an added factor for how those facets of their game interact. This is a kind of complex chemistry, where the specifics can really change how good a player is, so it's hard to just say 'two way players are better' or 'offensive centerpieces are better' in the abstract without more information .

[OhayoKD]

Me personally, I tend to evaluate players not as one-way players or two-way players, but as one, two, or three-way players. What do I mean by that?

To me, there are three broad ways a player can impact the game:
1. Defense. This one is obvious. How is a player as a man defender and team defender? Do they offer rim protection, are they good communicators, do they have good positioning, are they good in passing lanes or at the nail, do they provide defensive rebounding?
2. Scoring. Here, rather than having my second category be offense, I divide offense into scoring and creation. For scoring, what is their volume and efficiency? Are they able at score at al three levels? How do they get into their scoring attempts: is it in isolation, pick and roll, transition, off-ball play, etc.?
3. Creation. The simplest version of creation is passing. But there's other forms of creation that often go unappreciated. Are you a good offensive communicator and floor general? Do you have scoring gravity and set screens? Even more subtly, do you have good off ball movement to create scoring opportunities for teammates and create passing opportunities for teammates?

I think we can expand scoring and creation a bit more.

Scoring
1. How "open" are the shots/vs how many defenders. Assuming all else equal, hitting at the same efficiency and volume offers more value to a team if it's over two defenders vs one(or zero). All else is usually not equal but it is relevant

2. Ball-handling. Can you get to your spots on your own or does someone have to get the ball to you

Creation
1. Just like on defense, communicating/organizing teammates well helps produce better looks

2. Ball handling. Simplest way to take defenders out of a play is to drive past them. Elite handlers can also manipulate set defenses

3. Free-throws. The Shaq's and Wilt's(and to a lesser extent even the Giannis's) can put opposing defenders in foul-trouble limiting how they defend teammates with and without them on the floor if not fouling them out entirely.

4. Look quality. All reads/creations are not created equal

Would you rather build around a two-way player or an offensive centerpiece?

I feel like this question is more layered than simply saying one or the other. If Player A is probably not "good enough" to be a true championship level offensive centerpiece, I think Player B (a two-way player of a similar impact level) would be preferable just due to the fact that defensive impact "stacks" far easier than offensive impact. However, by laying the prerequisite that Player A is not "good enough" to be the championship level offensive centerpiece, I don't think you'd want to "build around" either of these players. So, as a supplementary player/2nd option or such, a two-way player would be preferable in most situations, in my opinion.

However, when evaluating all-time great players, the reverse might be true. If a player is one of the very best (a la Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant, Steph Curry) is one of the very best offensive centerpieces in history, and clearly "good enough" to be a true championship level offensive centerpiece, is it might be easier to construct a championship roster with them as the best player than all-time two-way guys (a la Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Giannis Ant.)? I think the answer is fuzzy, not sure if I have a definitive answer.

But I know many people do believe building around ATG offensive #1s > ATG two-way guys. And for those who think that, does that impact your comparison/evaluations of peak Magic/Kobe/Steph/etc vs. peak Duncan/KG/Giannis/etc.?

I'd say history of winning and impact prefers two-way/one way defense over one-way offense.

Magic is, in an emperical sense, maybe the best exception with arguably era-best impact indicators, but Duncan matches him in raw-stuff and in data-ball I'd say Lebron(gap), Duncan, and KG are the big 3

[Peregrine01]

An all-time great offensive player over a two-way guy for me. To me, great offensive players have proven to have much higher impact than players who are more balanced in the modern era. Just take a look at the championships since 2000 - the winner has almost always featured an ATG offensive player or a guy who went on an ATG offensive run in the playoffs.

2023: Jokic
2015, 2017, 2018, 2022: Curry
2012, 2013, 2016, 2020: Bron
2011: Dirk
2009, 2010: Kobe
2006: Wade
2000-2002: Shaq

That's 16 out of 24 seasons. And even those championship Spurs teams had Ginobili, whose offensive impact rivalled that of Tim Duncan's defense. The notable exceptions of teams with two-way guys without ATG offensive impact are the Bucks in 2021, Raptors in 2019, 2008 Celtics and the mid-00s Pistons. Even so, Giannis and Kawhi both had incredible offensive runs in their respective championship years and the Pistons remain a bit of an outlier in how well they played together.

[penbeast0]

An all-time great offensive player over a two-way guy for me. To me, great offensive players have proven to have much higher impact than players who are more balanced in the modern era. Just take a look at the championships since 2000 - the winner has almost always featured an ATG offensive player or a guy who went on an ATG offensive run in the playoffs.

2023: Jokic
2015, 2017, 2018, 2022: Curry
2012, 2013, 2016, 2020: Bron
2011: Dirk
2009, 2010: Kobe
2006: Wade
2000-2002: Shaq

That's 16 out of 24 seasons. And even those championship Spurs teams had Ginobili, whose offensive impact rivalled that of Tim Duncan's defense. The notable exceptions of teams with two-way guys without ATG offensive impact are the Bucks in 2021, Raptors in 2019, 2008 Celtics and the mid-00s Pistons. Even so, Giannis and Kawhi both had incredible offensive runs in their respective championship years and the Pistons remain a bit of an outlier in how well they played together.

Going forward until the rules change again sure, but now go back and look at the 20th century. That's most of basketball history.

[homecourtloss]

Me personally, I tend to evaluate players not as one-way players or two-way players, but as one, two, or three-way players. What do I mean by that?

To me, there are three broad ways a player can impact the game:
1. Defense. This one is obvious. How is a player as a man defender and team defender? Do they offer rim protection, are they good communicators, do they have good positioning, are they good in passing lanes or at the nail, do they provide defensive rebounding?
2. Scoring. Here, rather than having my second category be offense, I divide offense into scoring and creation. For scoring, what is their volume and efficiency? Are they able at score at al three levels? How do they get into their scoring attempts: is it in isolation, pick and roll, transition, off-ball play, etc.?
3. Creation. The simplest version of creation is passing. But there's other forms of creation that often go unappreciated. Are you a good offensive communicator and floor general? Do you have scoring gravity and set screens? Even more subtly, do you have good off ball movement to create scoring opportunities for teammates and create passing opportunities for teammates?

I think we can expand scoring and creation a bit more.

Scoring
1. How "open" are the shots/vs how many defenders. Assuming all else equal, hitting at the same efficiency and volume offers more value to a team if it's over two defenders vs one(or zero). All else is usually not equal but it is relevant

2. Ball-handling. Can you get to your spots on your own or does someone have to get the ball to you

Creation
1. Just like on defense, communicating/organizing teammates well helps produce better looks

2. Ball handling. Simplest way to take defenders out of a play is to drive past them. Elite handlers can also manipulate set defenses

3. Free-throws. The Shaq's and Wilt's(and to a lesser extent even the Giannis's) can put opposing defenders in foul-trouble limiting how they defend teammates with and without them on the floor if not fouling them out entirely.

4. Look quality. All reads/creations are not created equal

Would you rather build around a two-way player or an offensive centerpiece?

I feel like this question is more layered than simply saying one or the other. If Player A is probably not "good enough" to be a true championship level offensive centerpiece, I think Player B (a two-way player of a similar impact level) would be preferable just due to the fact that defensive impact "stacks" far easier than offensive impact. However, by laying the prerequisite that Player A is not "good enough" to be the championship level offensive centerpiece, I don't think you'd want to "build around" either of these players. So, as a supplementary player/2nd option or such, a two-way player would be preferable in most situations, in my opinion.

However, when evaluating all-time great players, the reverse might be true. If a player is one of the very best (a la Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant, Steph Curry) is one of the very best offensive centerpieces in history, and clearly "good enough" to be a true championship level offensive centerpiece, is it might be easier to construct a championship roster with them as the best player than all-time two-way guys (a la Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Giannis Ant.)? I think the answer is fuzzy, not sure if I have a definitive answer.

But I know many people do believe building around ATG offensive #1s > ATG two-way guys. And for those who think that, does that impact your comparison/evaluations of peak Magic/Kobe/Steph/etc vs. peak Duncan/KG/Giannis/etc.?

I'd say history of winning and impact prefers two-way/one way defense over one-way offense.

Magic is, in an emperical sense, maybe the best exception with arguably era-best impact indicators, but Duncan matches him in raw-stuff and in data-ball I'd say Lebron(gap), Duncan, and KG are the big 3

Now if you can get multi-faceted scoring, multi-faceted creation, and defense, all in one player…

[OhayoKD]

An all-time great offensive player over a two-way guy for me. To me, great offensive players have proven to have much higher impact than players who are more balanced in the modern era. Just take a look at the championships since 2000 - the winner has almost always featured an ATG offensive player or a guy who went on an ATG offensive run in the playoffs.

Well issue #1 is pretending two-way anchors are as common as one-way ones. Players who anchor offense are far more common than players who anchor offenses and defenses. Them being competitive would hint to the second(rarer) archetype being more valuable and as it so happens...

The framing here is also odd...

2023: Jokic
2015, 2017, 2018, 2022: Curry
2012, 2013, 2016, 2020: Bron
2011: Dirk
2009, 2010: Kobe
2006: Wade
2000-2002: Shaq

That's 16 out of 24 seasons. And even those championship Spurs teams had Ginobili, whose offensive impact rivalled that of Tim Duncan's defense. The notable exceptions of teams with two-way guys without ATG offensive impact are the Bucks in 2021, Raptors in 2019, 2008 Celtics and the mid-00s Pistons. Even so, Giannis and Kawhi both had incredible offensive runs in their respective championship years and the Pistons remain a bit of an outlier in how well they played together.

Going forward until the rules change again sure, but now go back and look at the 20th century. That's most of basketball history.

Yeah, alot of this is wierd. For 3 of those titles Lebron was his team's best defender and attacker. Same is probably true for Shaq in 2000(granted the defense falls off alot). Duncan is given the caveat of "manu was as valuable offensively as he was defensively" which
A. is not relevant when we are talking about "two-way" value and
B. probably applies more to Steph whose dynasty was better defensively in the playoffs and who plays with a guy who, unlike manu, plays similar minutes to Steph and looks like a superstar in terms of impact without steph

Flip Lebron's 3 years as his team's defensive anchor and the breakdown becomes 13 to 11. Flip 2000 shaq and it's 12 to 12[/b].

In fairness, Kawhi is not a "notable exception" as he was nowhere close to the raptors defensive anchor so i guess it should be 14-10 or 13-11, but that is a near .500 split despite two-way anchors being much rarer than one-way ones. I'd say advantage still favors the guys who do both.

Duncan, Giannis, and Lebron are also winning with the least help over this period so yeah, not seeing the argument here

[rk2023]

An all-time great offensive player over a two-way guy for me. To me, great offensive players have proven to have much higher impact than players who are more balanced in the modern era. Just take a look at the championships since 2000 - the winner has almost always featured an ATG offensive player or a guy who went on an ATG offensive run in the playoffs.

2023: Jokic
2015, 2017, 2018, 2022: Curry
2012, 2013, 2016, 2020: Bron
2011: Dirk
2009, 2010: Kobe
2006: Wade
2000-2002: Shaq

That's 16 out of 24 seasons. And even those championship Spurs teams had Ginobili, whose offensive impact rivalled that of Tim Duncan's defense. The notable exceptions of teams with two-way guys without ATG offensive impact are the Bucks in 2021, Raptors in 2019, 2008 Celtics and the mid-00s Pistons. Even so, Giannis and Kawhi both had incredible offensive runs in their respective championship years and the Pistons remain a bit of an outlier in how well they played together.

I agree in that all of the guys you named are all-time offensive guys, but more often than not - said players you are classifying as such was deployed as a floor-raiser of a defensively slanted team.

I think nowadays, it's more a matter of superb tactics, and playing stellar smart team basketball (on both sides of the floor) that's going to give you a chance to win 4 7-game series against different opponents. Denver perfectly represents that. Through scheme (and some matchup dependency) they treaded water on defense (getting better on the biggest stage) while having the offensive safety net Jokic can be.

Curry was flanked with this generations' best defender (and other great defensive support) for all four of the rings Golden State accrued. Since you're mentioning Manu vs. Duncan, feel like Green vs. Curry in an inverse sort of way should at-least be touched upon in this context.

The 2020 Lakers (23, for a close to contention team) had Anthony Davis anchoring on defense while the 2020 squad had a group of formidable perimeter defenders and James excelling in a lower activity/QB/Help-Defense sort of role (21, while the team was arguably better than 20 at full health, defense was the calling card then like it was one year earlier). Perhaps 2016 and 13 were more offensively slanted LBJ casts than 2012/20, but even with roster construction in favor of such - James was a tremendous defensive anchor in his own right.

Same goes for Dirk's Mavs and Kobe's Lakers, and Wade's Heat - where Wade was an all-time guard defender as well.

Not fully disagreeing with your premise here, but I'd say Wade, Kobe (his defense was rock solid for his position/situation come PS time), LBJ, Garnett in 2008, Duncan in 2005/07, Giannis in 21, Kawhi in 19 - all were two way aces. Being an offensive safety net and having tangible defensive utility for your team I'd argue provides more flexibility in terms of roster construction.

Dirk, Curry, and Jokic all are offensive unicorns in their own way to the point where non box-score aspects and very unique deployment for their position (eg. Curry's on/off ball hybrid attack, Dirk's spacing and gravity as a friggin Power Forward, Jokic's own spacing and Offensive QBing as a friggin center) are more outliers than norms in terms of roster flexibility around more of a "one-way" player.

[Peregrine01]

An all-time great offensive player over a two-way guy for me. To me, great offensive players have proven to have much higher impact than players who are more balanced in the modern era. Just take a look at the championships since 2000 - the winner has almost always featured an ATG offensive player or a guy who went on an ATG offensive run in the playoffs.

Well issue #1 is pretending two-way anchors are as common as one-way ones. Players who anchor offense are far more common than players who anchor offenses and defenses. Them being competitive would hint to the second(rarer) archetype being more valuable and as it so happens...

The framing here is also odd...

2023: Jokic
2015, 2017, 2018, 2022: Curry
2012, 2013, 2016, 2020: Bron
2011: Dirk
2009, 2010: Kobe
2006: Wade
2000-2002: Shaq

That's 16 out of 24 seasons. And even those championship Spurs teams had Ginobili, whose offensive impact rivalled that of Tim Duncan's defense. The notable exceptions of teams with two-way guys without ATG offensive impact are the Bucks in 2021, Raptors in 2019, 2008 Celtics and the mid-00s Pistons. Even so, Giannis and Kawhi both had incredible offensive runs in their respective championship years and the Pistons remain a bit of an outlier in how well they played together.

Going forward until the rules change again sure, but now go back and look at the 20th century. That's most of basketball history.

Yeah, alot of this is wierd. For 3 of those titles Lebron was his team's best defender and attacker. Same is probably true for Shaq in 2000(granted the defense falls off alot). Duncan is given the caveat of "manu was as valuable offensively as he was defensively" which
A. is not relevant when we are talking about "two-way" value and
B. probably applies more to Steph whose dynasty was better defensively in the playoffs and who plays with a guy who, unlike manu, plays similar minutes to Steph and looks like a superstar in terms of impact without steph

Flip Lebron's 3 years as his team's defensive anchor and the breakdown becomes 13 to 11. Flip 2000 shaq and it's 12 to 12[/b].

In fairness, Kawhi is not a "notable exception" as he was nowhere close to the raptors defensive anchor so i guess it should be 14-10 or 13-11, but that is a near .500 split despite two-way anchors being much rarer than one-way ones. I'd say advantage still favors the guys who do both.

Duncan, Giannis, and Lebron are also winning with the least help over this period so yeah, not seeing the argument here

Perhaps my framing was off. IMO, it's easier to build a championship team around an ATG offensive player than an ATG defensive player or a more well-rounded player who's worse on offense but better on defense. Obviously, if you can get ATG impact on both sides of the ball, that'd be great but I don't think a player like that has ever existed. Lebron might be the closest to reaching that in 2012, 2013 and 2016 but I find it very hard to argue that his defensive impact was anywhere near his offensive impact in those years.

Anyway, Lebron, Steph, Shaq, Kobe, Dirk and now Jokic probably rank in the top 10 of greatest offensive players of all-time and they were the key drivers for 15 of the last 24 championships. How many all-time great defensive players won championships since 2000 as the key drivers of their team? You have Tim Duncan (2003, 2005 and 2007), KG (2008) and Giannis (2021) accounting for 5 total and that's about it.

[OhayoKD]

Well issue #1 is pretending two-way anchors are as common as one-way ones. Players who anchor offense are far more common than players who anchor offenses and defenses. Them being competitive would hint to the second(rarer) archetype being more valuable and as it so happens...

The framing here is also odd...

Going forward until the rules change again sure, but now go back and look at the 20th century. That's most of basketball history.

Yeah, alot of this is wierd. For 3 of those titles Lebron was his team's best defender and attacker. Same is probably true for Shaq in 2000(granted the defense falls off alot). Duncan is given the caveat of "manu was as valuable offensively as he was defensively" which
A. is not relevant when we are talking about "two-way" value and
B. probably applies more to Steph whose dynasty was better defensively in the playoffs and who plays with a guy who, unlike manu, plays similar minutes to Steph and looks like a superstar in terms of impact without steph

Flip Lebron's 3 years as his team's defensive anchor and the breakdown becomes 13 to 11. Flip 2000 shaq and it's 12 to 12[/b].

In fairness, Kawhi is not a "notable exception" as he was nowhere close to the raptors defensive anchor so i guess it should be 14-10 or 13-11, but that is a near .500 split despite two-way anchors being much rarer than one-way ones. I'd say advantage still favors the guys who do both.

Duncan, Giannis, and Lebron are also winning with the least help over this period so yeah, not seeing the argument here

Perhaps my framing was off. IMO, it's easier to build a championship team around an ATG offensive player than an ATG defensive player or a more well-rounded player who's worse on offense but better on defense. Obviously, if you can get ATG impact on both sides of the ball, that'd be great but I don't think a player like that has ever existed. Lebron might be the closest to reaching that in 2012, 2013 and 2016 but I find it very hard to argue that his defensive impact was anywhere near his offensive impact in those years.

Anyway, Lebron, Steph, Shaq, Kobe, Dirk and now Jokic probably rank in the top 10 of greatest offensive players of all-time and they were the key drivers for 15 of the last 24 championships. How many all-time great defensive players won championships since 2000 as the key drivers of their team? You have Tim Duncan (2003, 2005 and 2007), KG (2008) and Giannis (2021) accounting for 5 total and that's about it.

Yeah, again, even with that more specific standard, I think the issue here is you not adjusting for the size of the initial pool. Especially keeping in mind that the offensive players who lose naturally get ranked lower regardless.

In the 2000's there are three two-way players who fit your bar of "good offense, atg defense" in KG, Duncan, and Dwight(good seems conservative but whatever.). One has a case as the best winner since Russell and posts better with and without splits for his prime and career than anyone between 1980 and 2010(magic comes close for), and generally looks better in extended rapm than any offensive maestros not named Lebron. The other wins 1 title in his one healthy prime-year with a strong supporting case and gets injured. They also look great in rapm and wowy(though not --as-- good in the latter) mounting a case vs even duncan. Dwight wins 0 and statistically has an outside case as league-best in 2011. Cool.

Shaq and Kobe win 9 combined with 6 coming on the same team and posting worse impact stuff than duncan or kg. Wade wins 1, with shaq. Tmac, a kobe-ish peak for many, wins 0. Nash, a goat-opoy candidate statistically, wins...0. CP3? 0. AI, Melo, Vince Carter? 0. Dirk? 0. And none of these players post an equivalent impact portfolio to duncan or garnett except shaq...if you squint.

I do not see how that favors one-ways as easier to build around. They are easier to find, but that does not mean that, [b[if you find one[/b], the one-way would be easier to win with. Duncan being rarer does not mean Duncan is harder to win with than a Magic or a Shaq. It just means he's harder to find(which, all else being equal, would be an advantage).

For the 2010's, we again get to the issue of scarcity where we don't even have atg defense+good offense until Giannis, Embid and AD pop up mid-way through the decade. 2 of the 3 proceed to win titles with the former posting all-time rs and playoff impact while the latter posts all-time playoff impact. Embid posts both in different injury-mired losing efforts. Steph, KD, Lebron, Wade, Kawhi and Dirk win a bunch(alot of that comes with each other). Harden, Paul George, Westbrook, chris paul and Lillard win nothing and only Steph and Lebron really look comparable to Giannis in individual stuff.

Is the 10's dominated by offensive anchors because offensive anchors are on average more valuable than "atg defense+good offense"? No, I'd say it's because there was a lot more of them and conveniently the offensive ones were drafted or played around on excellent teams.

Heck by the data, Draymond belongs here despite not being "good" on offense and he 3.

Perhaps it is harder to be atg on defense and good on offense in the newer leagues, but when those players show up, they are still the cream of the crop or very close.