Which player would you rather have?

[Storm Surge]

Player 1 - Greatest scorer in the league, but one of the worst defenders as well.

Would score 35 PPG on 55% shooting but give up 20 PPG to scrubs, when he is defending guys that are actually capable of scoring he'd give up 32 PPG, net of +3 PPG

Player 2 - Greatest defender in the league, worst scorer in the league.

Would shut down anybody, even top tier players to a guaranteed half of their averages, half their PPG, half their shooting percentage NO MATTER WHAT. When he is defending scrubs he will not let the player score more than 5 PPG guaranteed. Can't score for squat, teams can leave him open all day and he'll shoot 20%. Averages 5 PPG getting 40 minutes per night.

When Player 1 and Player 2 play against each other, Player 1 would score 17.5 PPG(half of his avg) on only 35.7%(half his shooting %). Player 2 would score 10 PPG on 40% shooting.

[Cybulski37]

35 ppg on 55% is way too much to pass up for a massive liability on offense. You can mask someone's horrible defense if you're a smart team, but you can't mask that kind of horrible offense.

[Sharpie]

Against each other? Player 2. His team would always win because he stops player 1 from scoring the points his team needs for him to score and as a bonus player 2 would produce more than he usually does offensively. Seems to me that it would be a blow out every game for player 2's team.

Against the league? Player 2 because player 1 would probably demand the max, player 2 would also require a good chunk of change as well being a perennial DPoY candidate, but not nearly as much.

EDIT:

35 ppg on 55% is way too much to pass up for a massive liability on offense. You can mask someone's horrible defense if you're a smart team, but you can't mask that kind of horrible offense.

According to the OP, you can't mask player 1's terrible defense, that's why scrubs average 20 a game against him and decent players average 32, how much would he give up against stars? 45?

[TheOUTLAW]

Give me player 2. Someone that can always shut a player down is worth more than an efficient scorer IMO. That guy would be gold in the playoffs.

[JordansBulls]

Player 1 - Greatest scorer in the league, but one of the worst defenders as well.

Would score 35 PPG on 55% shooting but give up 20 PPG to scrubs, when he is defending guys that are actually capable of scoring he'd give up 32 PPG, net of +3 PPG

Player 2 - Greatest defender in the league, worst scorer in the league.

Would shut down anybody, even top tier players to a guaranteed half of their averages, half their PPG, half their shooting percentage NO MATTER WHAT. When he is defending scrubs he will not let the player score more than 5 PPG guaranteed. Can't score for squat, teams can leave him open all day and he'll shoot 20%. Averages 5 PPG getting 40 minutes per night.

When Player 1 and Player 2 play against each other, Player 1 would score 17.5 PPG(half of his avg) on only 35.7%(half his shooting %). Player 2 would score 10 PPG on 40% shooting.

If a guy is getting 35 ppg on 55% you take him probably over mostly anyone in history.

[Cybulski37]

woops double post.

[Cybulski37]

Against each other? Player 2. His team would always win because he stops player 1 from scoring the points his team needs for him to score and as a bonus player 2 would produce more than he usually does offensively. Seems to me that it would be a blow out every game for player 2's team.

Against the league? Player 2 because player 1 would probably demand the max, player 2 would also require a good chunk of change as well being a perennial DPoY candidate, but not nearly as much.

EDIT:

35 ppg on 55% is way too much to pass up for a massive liability on offense. You can mask someone's horrible defense if you're a smart team, but you can't mask that kind of horrible offense.

According to the OP, you can't mask player 1's terrible defense, that's why scrubs average 20 a game against him and decent players average 32, how much would he give up against stars? 45?

It doesn't matter how much he gives up against other offensive superstars because player 2 is ALWAYS working at a deficit. At 5 points per 40 minutes, on 20% shooting, he would probably be the worst offensive player in history. 35 ppg on 55% pretty much makes someone one of the BEST offensive players in history. WILT CHAMBERLAIN never even averaged 35+ ppg on 50%. Let's look at it this way. Player 2 needs ~10 shots to score 5 points. With 10 shots, Player 1 is looking at 10-12 points, minimum, when not facing player 2. That's not taking into account threes(which he should be making at an astonishing clip, considering he's the best scorer ever), and drawing fouls(which he should also be excelling at). Seriously, unless player 2 is surrounded by the all-time greatest scorers in league history, and player 1 is the only thing buoying a bunch of absolute scrubs on both sides of the floor, this is a no brainer.

[Sharpie]

Giving up 32 a game to average scorers makes player 1 the worst defensive player in NBA history.

EDIT:

Seriously, unless player 2 is surrounded by the all-time greatest scorers in league history, and player 1 is the only thing buoying a bunch of absolute scrubs on both sides of the floor, this is a no brainer.

To me this is a no brainer too, but the other way around because of what we know: player 1's team CANNOT cover up his bad defense; whether or not player 2's can cover up his bad offense is still a mystery.

In effect, what the question the OP is asking is this: Would you rather play 4 on 5 on defense or offense? Hmm..........

[bluestang302]

So basically it's Adrian Dantley VS Bruce Bowen, more or less?

The easy cop out answer is: depends on the other players on the team. On a team with at least one dependable offensive player, you take player B. A guy guaranteed to limit the opposing team's best player to half his average or less will almost always put your team in winning shape as long as you get decent offense from the rest of the guys.

Player A is obviously one of the best scorers in league history. As Adrian Dantley was. Check the numbers, he almost did average 35 at 55%. (It was closer to 30-31 ppg, but he topped 55 % numerous years). His teams were never that good. When his teams WERE good (The Pistons) he was asked to score less. I think you can win with a player like that, especially if he has any other skills. If he's also a great rebounder or a great passer, he's a GOAT candidate despite the porous defense. Two of the players in league history who most closely resemble Player A are Dantley and George Gervin, who were neither rebounders nor terrific passers. Both are legit All-Time Greats, Gervin in particular is thought to be a top 30-40 player by many people. He never reached the Finals though.

[LiquidFire]

allen iverson vs ben wallace?

ai for me

[Cybulski37]

Giving up 32 a game to average scorers makes player 1 the worst defensive player in NBA history.

EDIT:

Seriously, unless player 2 is surrounded by the all-time greatest scorers in league history, and player 1 is the only thing buoying a bunch of absolute scrubs on both sides of the floor, this is a no brainer.

To me this is a no brainer too, but the other way around because of what we know: player 1's team CANNOT cover up his bad defense; whether or not player 2's can cover up his bad offense is still a mystery.

In effect, what the question the OP is asking is this: Would you rather play 4 on 5 on defense or offense? Hmm..........

He never said "average" scorers. He said people who were capable of scoring. To be fair, everyone in the NBA is capable of scoring, but I think he meant more along the lines of a 20 ppg type player. But anyway,

Let's assume for a moment that player 1 is a SG/SF. And so is player 2. Player 1 would be guarding the worse perimeter scorer on whatever team he was playing, while player 2 would guard the better one. That takes away the possibility of player 2 dominating total scrubs, while also lowering the possibility of of player 1 taking on all of these superstars that would rip him up.

And the last question is a no-brainer as well. If you have to play 4 on 5 on one end of the court, it's defense. You CAN mask a bad defender. We saw the Celtics struggle a lot this postseason when Rondo wasn't making shots. If you can have someone roaming around the ball while leaving someone like Rondo(who is a vastly superior offensive player to player 2) wide open without paying for it, that is a win for the defense. So by that measure, player 2 is a MAJOR liability. Player 1 is also a major liability, but with him, the scorer may score say 30 ppg on him, but again: he is still outproducing them, with better efficiency. Playing 4 on 5 is a much bigger disadvantage on offense than on defense.

[Cybulski37]

allen iverson vs ben wallace?

ai for me

Not Allen Iverson. Allen Iverson if he was shooting 55% instead of in the low 40s.

[Sharpie]

Well, if you personify these hypothetical players you'd have to give as much offense to 2 as you give defense to 1. Dantley and Iverson were not giving up 20 a game to scrubs - Iverson is actually an underrated defender. So instead of Bowen and Wallace, wouldn't it be better to say Cooper and Mourning?

Dantley or Cooper? Iverson or Mourning? That's fair.

That takes away the possibility of player 2 dominating total scrubs, while also lowering the possibility of of player 1 taking on all of these superstars that would rip him up.

Having a scrub score 20 a game against player 1 is an example of player 1 getting ripped up. Who cares if player 1 scores 15 more a game when that scrub is getting at least double his average while the rest of his teammates are getting their usual.

It would be like Rafer Alston averaging 20 a game against Iverson. The Nuggets would never beat Rockets if that were the case, but it's not, Iverson isn't that bad.

Player 1 is also a major liability, but with him, the scorer may score say 30 ppg on him, but again: he is still outproducing them, with better efficiency. Playing 4 on 5 is a much bigger disadvantage on offense than on defense.

You don't know if he's the more efficient scorer vs that 30 point scorer, considering the facts you would think that player 1's defense raises the opposing players efficiency too, no?

Think about this; you're playing the Jordan Bulls - any of the championship teams - would you rather have a player that can hold Jordan down to a guaranteed 16 points per game on 25% shooting or have a 55% shooting 35 point per game scorer? Which do you think would be more devastating to the Bulls?

[CBS7]

Half of 55% is 27.5%, not 37.5% or 35.7%.

[mojomarc]

Well, if you personify these hypothetical players you'd have to give as much offense to 2 as you give defense to 1. Dantley and Iverson were not giving up 20 a game to scrubs - Iverson is actually an underrated defender. So instead of Bowen and Wallace, wouldn't it be better to say Cooper and Mourning?

Dantley or Cooper? Iverson or Mourning? That's fair.

Neither Cooper nor Mourning were the worst scorers in the league, so they aren't good comparisons. We would have to think in terms of Dantley and Ben Wallace, or Iverson vs. Rodman. It's interesting which ones of those two pairings have won championships, and which haven't, isn't it?

[Basileus777]

I'd take player 1. Its much easier to find good defensive players than great scorers. Its easy enough to hide a perimeter player on defense if you have a coach who knows what he is doing. Team defense is more important than individual defense.