Offense Wins Championships?

[I. Melvin]

Heard a discussion amongst (allegedly) knowledgeable CBB analysts that lately it's the OFFENSIVE powers that are making the Final Four.

Is that correct? (It would be nice for my preferences and reality to be aligned for once ... )

[bluegrassking]

The best mix of O and D is probaly more accurate but it's been near a generation since a team won that averaged less than 75 and that was MSU. Generally you need 78per, though that may be sliding down along with scoring overall.

[Will Lavender]

I think it's a balance.

There's a stat I heard about every championship team in the last 15 years having an all-conference point guard and an all-conference center. (I've bungled that, but it's close.)

I know teams who average less than 75 a game have a hard time winning titles. But if we're talking generally, I would say EFFICIENCY wins championships. Just looking at the recent Final Four teams, there've been clubs that are all over the map. UCLA and Georgetown were defensive beasts, North Carolina puts points on the board, Florida was somewhere in between.

In my own personal opinion, and this is simplifying the question, I think defensive field goal percentage, assist to turnover ratio, and offensive three point field goal percentage are 1A, 1B, and 1C on the statistical college b'ball hierarchy.

[Mark Blueblood]

You obviously have to have both. We did pretty good this year with a pretty anemic offense, for example. Let's face it, it sure wasn't our offense that got us to 12-4 in the SEC.

But...I believe in the old axiom a good defense will stop a good offense. Or, that other axiom - a good defense is the best offense. IMO, oh so true.

I've NEVER heard it said the opposite. Besides, the talking heads are, for the most parts, even bigger idiots than I am. And that's saying a LOT!

[matt colvin]

I think you can win with less offense than defense. Defense is your safety net, so to speak. It allows teams like the current Kentucky to beat UT and Vandy on occasion. Well, it takes only one given night, so :icon_mrgreen:

I might be biased though, because I think excellent defense is more gratifying to the team than offense is in many cases. But, with that said, we do not always see excellent offense.

[jdeasy]

In the shot clock era, no team that averaged less than 78 points per game has won the title.

[bluescat]

In the shot clock era, no team that averaged less than 78 points per game has won the title.

Pretty interesting fact, in my opinion.

[jdeasy]

Pretty interesting fact, in my opinion.


It even more than title winners, I think the number of teams that made the final four in the shot clock era averaging under 78 points per game is a total of 2.

One of them was UCLA. Basketball at it's very core is an offensive game. To be an elite team, you must be able to score points.

[RaleighCat]

The teams playing the best ball right now are: UNC, KS, Memphis, TX and UCLA. One of that group is going to win it all and only UCLA is really known for its defense.

However, what makes all of those title contenders dangerous defensive teams is their athleticism. All of them have long athletic wings, leapers, quick point guards and multi-dimensional players. They also rebound the ball very well from multiple positions.

Jawdropping Talent wins championships. When that talent plays just enough defense then you have something special.

[Will Lavender]

The teams playing the best ball right now are: UNC, KS, Memphis, TX and UCLA. One of that group is going to win it all and only UCLA is really known for its defense.

However, what makes all of those title contenders dangerous defensive teams is their athleticism. All of them have long athletic wings, leapers, quick point guards and multi-dimensional players. They also rebound the ball very well from multiple positions.

Jawdropping Talent wins championships. When that talent plays just enough defense then you have something special.

Agree with every word of this post, especially the second paragraph.

ATHLETES. That's what I want. They score points, they defend, they rebound. If you have an athletic team you can mask a lot of problems; if you have an athletic team with two or three guys with skill, you'll win championships.

[bluegrassking]

MSU averaged like 75 (so they are the exception and you can't rule out UCLA), I believe but the point is the same and they had an outrageous rebounding margin to make up the few points difference.

NOBODY is saying scoring X amont of points means you win the title but it's burying your head in the sand to pretend putting the basket in the hoop doesn't count for a whole, whole lot.

An average defensive team has a chance provided they can run and score but an average offensive team better bring an awful lot to the table to even make the Final Four, much less bring home the big hardware.

[Realist]

Dean Oliver, in his book Basketball on Paper, addresses this issue for the NBA. It's really inconclusive. It comes up about 50/50 whether the best offensive or best defensive team wins. One point he made was that it is possible to win championships with only 3 real offensive threats, the Jordan era Bulls were a good example. However, the role players HAVE to be efficient. In the case of the Bulls, Kerr or Paxon might only get a few 3 pointers per game in that offense but they consistently hit them. I think the point about efficiency is right on the money.

[CABVOL]

Offense certainly matters, but I guess I am from the old adage that defense wins championships. Speaking from a VOLS standpoint, we avg. the mid-80's in scoring, BUT, as for the Arky game, we scored 91 but gave up 92...with that scenario, one will lose everytime. If the Vols don't start playing DEFENSE, they won't make it past tonight's game.

[Buck_Naked]

You obviously have to have both. We did pretty good this year with a pretty anemic offense, for example. Let's face it, it sure wasn't our offense that got us to 12-4 in the SEC.

But...I believe in the old axiom a good defense will stop a good offense. Or, that other axiom - a good defense is the best offense. IMO, oh so true.

I've NEVER heard it said the opposite. Besides, the talking heads are, for the most parts, even bigger idiots than I am. And that's saying a LOT!

You're right, we did have an anemic offense this year, and so did most of the other SEC teams. Thus the 12-4 record. I've said all along that a good defense can only take you so far. I mean, you can hold teams to 50 points 'till the cows come home, but if you can't score at least 51 points in the process it means nothing.

Personally, I'd rather have a team with a great offense and a pretty good defense rather than the opposite. Tubby's squads were always great defensive teams (for the most part), and so was this year's team. But over the past 3 years we've lost more than 30 games. I don't know about you, but that tells me the "Defense Wins Championships" axiom is, at best, inaccurate!

[DBCAT]

I think you need to have a balance of offense and defense, but a team that is great offensively will beat a team that is great defensively. Great defense is wonderful, but if you are not a high scoring team and if you are playing a team that is deep with 7 or 8 guys who are capable of scoring double figures your defense had better be near perfect, because sooner or later you are gonna get burned. I would take a balance and have the best chance to win, but if you are gonna just have one or the other you had better take the offense. At the end of the game it's the team with the most points that get the W.

[Mr. T]

I think you need to have a balance of offense and defense, but a team that is great offensively will beat a team that is great defensively. Great defense is wonderful, but if you are not a high scoring team and if you are playing a team that is deep with 7 or 8 guys who are capable of scoring double figures your defense had better be near perfect, because sooner or later you are gonna get burned. I would take a balance and have the best chance to win, but if you are gonna just have one or the other you had better take the offense. At the end of the game it's the team with the most points that get the W.


Points can come from defense too though with steals and transition baskets. In the end it just matters that you can score effectively (say 75+ ppg) whether those points come from the defense or offense. I think the confusion comes in basketball where the line between the two isn't as separated as it is in say football.

[DBCAT]

Points can come from defense too though with steals and transition baskets. In the end it just matters that you can score effectively (say 75+ ppg) whether those points come from the defense or offense. I think the confusion comes in basketball where the line between the two isn't as separated as it is in say football.

You are right in saying that points can come from defense too, but I'm just saying that a great offensive player is going to beat a great defensive player most of the time. You can have that great defense, but you are not gonna get all of those steals and maybe not as many blocks when you are playing against a great offensive team. Teams that handle the ball well and pass the ball well are not as likely to have the ball stolen or to have their shots blocked because they get the ball to the right guy.

[Mr. T]

You are right in saying that points can come from defense too, but I'm just saying that a great offensive player is going to beat a great defensive player most of the time. You can have that great defense, but you are not gonna get all of those steals and maybe not as many blocks when you are playing against a great offensive team. Teams that handle the ball well and pass the ball well are not as likely to have the ball stolen or to have their shots blocked because they get the ball to the right guy.

Which is why I agree with what people have already said.... you need both. A great offensive team that can't stop anybody won't win a championship either. Great defense will win you the most games IMO, but you need to have enough firepower to overcome that game where the other team is just unconscious that you inevitably run into in the tourney.

[DBCAT]

Which is why I agree with what people have already said.... you need both. A great offensive team that can't stop anybody won't win a championship either. Great defense will win you the most games IMO, but you need to have enough firepower to overcome that game where the other team is just unconscious that you inevitably run into in the tourney.

Absolutely. As I said before I think you need a balance of both, but if you didn't have both and you had to take one over the other I would probably take offense.

[RCS]

I think you need to have a balance of offense and defense, but a team that is great offensively will beat a team that is great defensively. Great defense is wonderful, but if you are not a high scoring team and if you are playing a team that is deep with 7 or 8 guys who are capable of scoring double figures your defense had better be near perfect, because sooner or later you are gonna get burned. I would take a balance and have the best chance to win, but if you are gonna just have one or the other you had better take the offense. At the end of the game it's the team with the most points that get the W.
The reality is you have to do both. No matter how good you are offense if you are truly terrible on D you will lose alot. Look at Duke. They had a very good offense but went cold from 3 and lost. If you are the best defense in the world but struggle to score 50 you are going to lose a lot because a team can get hot on you no matter how good of defense you play so you are going to have to put some points on the board. I think the defense wins championships come from the fact that if you are a team with great talent, championship level talent, you ussually can score, but a there have been a bunch of talented teams that never bought into D that came up short of where their talent level should have taken them. I don't think it means D at all costs.