Does defense win championships?

TAI8 · Post #1 » by **TAI8** » Sat Sep 6, 2008 11:50 pm

I've been looking at the champions from the '03 Spurs to the '08 Celtics and I asked myself this question: Does defense win championships? Or is it more in the region of a top 10 offense and top 10 defense win championships?

'08: Boston Celtics Offense 9th Defense 1st
San Antonio Spurs Offense 15th Defense 3rd lost to Los Angeles Lakers Offense 3rd Defense 5th

'07: San Antonio Spurs Offense 5th Defense 2nd

'06: Miami Heat Offense 7th Defense 9th
San Antonio Spurs Offense 10th Defense 1st lost to Dallas Mavericks Offense 1st Defense 11th

'05: San Antonio Spurs Offense 8th Defense 1st

'04: Detroit Pistons Offense 18th Defense 2nd
San Antonio Spurs Offense 15th Defense 1st lost to Los Angeles Lakers Offense 6th Defense 8th

'03: San Antonio Spurs Offense 7th Defense 3rd

So by deriving from the aforementioned the Spurs lost every even-numbered year to a team that is in the top 10 in offense and top 10 in defense even though the Spurs's defense was either 3rd in the league ('08 Spurs) or 1st in the league ('06 and '04 Spurs). The only exception to the trend was the '04 Detroit Pistons but they faced a Lakers team with internal problems.

GuyverX · Post #2 » by **GuyverX** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 12:00 am

TAI8 wrote:I've been looking at the champions from the '03 Spurs to the '08 Celtics and I asked myself this question: Does defense win championships? Or is it more in the region of a top 10 offense and top 10 defense win championships?

Yes and yes. You answered your own question. Top 10 defense is good defense. God defense wins championships but you need to score adequately too.

Post #3 » by **Basti** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 12:06 am

just curios and slightly OT: who was the best defensive team back in 2004? the pistons being "only" 2nd kinda surprises me. my guess would be Indiana right?

AnSweR07 · Post #4 » by **AnSweR07** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 12:07 am

Of course. Offense wins games. D-Fence wins chips.

The Notic · Post #5 » by **The Notic** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 12:35 am

No. It's a tired old myth. Balance wins championships.

Ballings7 · Post #6 » by **Ballings7** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 12:37 am

Relative balance is what ultimately does it.

DaDragicShow · Post #7 » by **DaDragicShow** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 12:53 am

I still believe that Run and Gun wins championship but you must have a proper coach( not named mike dantoni). Defense is just overrated you need offense to win games and score more points then your opponent.

Post #8 » by **Flash3** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 1:00 am

^A run and gun team hasn't won a title since Riley's Lakers, what makes you think they can win a title anytime soon? :dontknow:

DaDragicShow · Post #9 » by **DaDragicShow** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 1:11 am

Because not alot of coaches try running and gunning. Other then the Warriors of the past 3 years, the Suns since 04-08 and Kings of 200-2003 not many teams try it. Lets say if 5-7 coaches atleast try it this season then you would see more championships from those teams.

Post #10 » by **loserX** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 1:30 am

arizonaplaya85 wrote:Because not alot of coaches try running and gunning. Other then the Warriors of the past 3 years, the Suns since 04-08 and Kings of 200-2003 not many teams try it. Lets say if 5-7 coaches atleast try it this season then you would see more championships from those teams.

What kind of logic is that? If more teams play a certain style, that style would win more championships? That totally begs the question. WHY would those teams win championships? "Just because there are more of them" is not an answer.

Cevap · Post #11 » by **Cevap** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 1:44 am

Not really. It's just more feasible to assemble a great defensive team instead of an offensive team. Give me the best offensive players in the league today and have them play against the best defensive players and I put money down the offense would win. It's just that the offensive team will have a much higher payroll that no one can really afford (or will get a chance to acquire so many superstars)

Post #12 » by **Flash3** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 1:49 am

arizonaplaya85 wrote:Because not alot of coaches try running and gunning. Other then the Warriors of the past 3 years, the Suns since 04-08 and Kings of 200-2003 not many teams try it. Lets say if 5-7 coaches atleast try it this season then you would see more championships from those teams.

What?

I asked you why are you so confident that a run/gun team can win a title when one hasn't come close to a title in nearly 20 years, and you say because not a lot of coaches try running and gunning? :roll:

Well, they are a few variations of it, but they aren't deemed succesful in winning titles, and the past couple of champions prove that.

I'm not sure what you said thought......

Post #13 » by **Flash3** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 1:50 am

Cevap wrote:Not really. It's just more feasible to assemble a great defensive team instead of an offensive team. Give me the best offensive players in the league today and have them play against the best defensive players and I put money down the offense would win. It's just that the offensive team will have a much higher payroll that no one can really afford (or will get a chance to acquire so many superstars)

Not really. If you put some of the best offensive players, along with the right facilitator @ the 1 spot, you might have success.....

Post #14 » by **TheOUTLAW** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 1:58 am

Flash3 wrote:^A run and gun team hasn't won a title since Riley's Lakers, what makes you think they can win a title anytime soon?

The Showtime Lakers may have run, but they ran because they played great defense. I don't think you can win without being a superior defensive team.

magicfan4life05 · Post #15 » by **magicfan4life05** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 2:01 am

Superstars and All-time greats win championships.

I'm paraphrasing what nate33 from the wizards board said, but something to the effect of in the last 20-25 years (with exception to the 2004 detroit pistons, the ultimate team), the teams who won the championship always had one of the top 20 players of all time.

2008-Kevin Garnett
2007-Tim Duncan
2006-Dwyane Wade (jury still out but he's a bonafide superstar on his way), Shaquille O'neal
2005-Tim Duncan
2004-The big exception
2003-Tim Duncan
2002-Shaq/Kobe
2001-Shaq/Kobe
2000-Shaq/Kobe
1999-Tim Duncan
1998-Jordan
1997-Jordan
1996-Jordan
1995-Dream
1994-Dream
1993-Jordan
1992-Jordan
1991-Jordan
1990-Isiah Thomas
1989-Isiah Thomas
1988-Magic, Kareem
1987-Magic, Kareem
1986-Larry Bird
1985-Magic, Kareem
1984-Larry Bird
1983-Moses malone
1982-Magic
1981-Bird?
1980-Magic

Point blank, the NBA is a star's league, sure defense and all that helps, but in the end, you need great players to win it all, and in most cases, all-time greats.

^ the ultimate goal

(also a little bit of help from stern wouldnt help!!!

j/k )

Ballings7 · Post #16 » by **Ballings7** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 2:05 am

The difference with the running teams of the past, and the more recent ones, is in addition to being able to run, they could also play half-court offense, defend, and rebound above-averagely. Those were just unique, incredible teams. Those teams also didn't rely on quick offense so much like the Suns, Warriors, Nellie Mavs, 99-01 Kings did, where they basically didn't stick out anywhere else as a team consistently (to a lesser degree for the Kings). Thus not being built that well for playoff basketball. None of those teams had playoff-level defense and rebounding.

The main factor in the difference between the two kinds of teams that ran, are the centers in Russell and Kareem. The long-term key team factor being versatility and balance.

So it wasn't so much about the running they could do, but the flexibility on both sides of the court.

Number34 · Post #17 » by **Number34** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 2:06 am

Why is the jury still out on wade being a superstar? He has the same claim to it as kg, even more so depending from the angle you look.

Ballings7 · Post #18 » by **Ballings7** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 2:08 am

Wade's proved he's a superstar, he just needs to be healthy again. Which he should be notably better there again.

magicfan4life05 · Post #19 » by **magicfan4life05** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 2:09 am

Number34 wrote:Why is the jury still out on wade being a superstar? He has the same claim to it as kg, even more so depending from the angle you look.

My apologies, I wasn't clear enough. No DOUBT wade is a superstar in the league, I meant jury is still out on him being an all-time great. I think KG has solidified his place on the list of all-time greats, but Wade is definitely on his way but it's just a little early, but I believe he will be.

When I said

2006-Dwyane Wade (jury still out but he's a bonafide superstar on his way), Shaquille O'neal

I should have said, "jury still out on him being an all-time great, but he's a bonafide superstar right now on his way to reaching all-time status"

Ballings7 · Post #20 » by **Ballings7** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 2:13 am

magicfan4life05 wrote:Point blank, the NBA is a star's league, sure defense and all that helps, but in the end, you need great players to win it all, and in most cases, all-time greats.

But, if you don't have the right kind of team make-up around those great players, you aren't going to do that much, or anything. Above-average defense has to be in there, as does enough 3PT shooting, as does decent bench depth, as does additional offensive creativity outside of the top guy.

You need both star players and well-rounded team ability.