I like Ant but I'd make that trade in a heartbeat. You can't teach +3 defensive BPM and he's a 35% three point shooter.
I really don't understand this misconception. Why do people believe there's no skill in defense? It seems to me that, in general, good defenders are a lot smarter than great offensive players who play no defense. Playing defense requires a real court sense and awareness of your surroundings and not everybody has that. Perhaps I don't know what "hustle" is - but certainly if it's what makes a good defender then some people are incapable of it no matter how hard they try. Of course, it's rare that a player has a lot of one and practically none of the other, but Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman vs. Lou Williams might be a comparison - somebody check the advanced stats.
Offense is about effort and just make up your mind I want to do it and watch film and find out what Steph Curry likes to do and do that.
Maybe skill wasn't the right word? Yes it does take intelligence to defend in a team style, but one on one defense is hustle and athletisism. Who is going to be first to that open spot? Wallace and Rodman are hall of famers? I put them above Lou Williams. Now compare one of those two to a purely offensive only player but still a possible HOF like Love? Hmmm might be a toss up. Would I rather have Love or one of the two you mentioned? I think it depends on the team they are on and the skills of the rest of the players. I think for me, it just seems its easier to teach a defensive hustler how to get into the right spot more than it does to teach a sweet touch to an offensive player.
Offense is alot more than effort. It takes a soft touch. We need to look no further than Nurk. He didn't have a soft touch . Forcing things. Then he slowed down, his shots were softer and have been going in more and looking better. A guy like Ed Davis isn't going to improve. Ill take the offensive guy with more of a chance to improve because offense is more of a skill than a hustler who cant really improve their athleticism much more than they typically are . Meaning you see alot more of players like Nurk who improve, than you do a player like ...Man I cant think of a shitty defender who got better in the NBA. not substantially anyhow. Ant has shows flashes he can improve greatly. I dont see Trent JR improving his defense greatly. for example. For this reason, defensive players are easier to find than offensive.
Defense is about effort, hustle, and smarts - but it's also about pure inborn reaction time. Some can get to the spot a lot easier than others.
That's why I think its harder to teach and or see a guy improve dramatically on D. Most players D is what it is by the time they reach the NBA. A shooter can have a better percentage of improving. I would absolutely trade Ant for a Rodman or a Wallace, but those guys aren't available.
That's certainly an element, but you can make yourself a valuable defensive player even if you're not incredibly fleet of foot. The Bird Celtics had great defense, even while starting Bird and McHale, neither of whom would win any races. And Jokic has great defensive numbers, and likewise. It's also true that end-to-end speed does not necessarily correlate with side-to-side speed. I can't beat anyone in a race but I have pretty good lateral quickness. Someone like Wes Matthews seems to be the same way.
I think I'm defining quickness a bit differently. I would break defense down into: 1. Quickness - From the time the photons enter your eyes until your brain parses the scene and tells your feet what to do. 2. Speed - From the time your brain tells you where to go, how fast can your body actually get you there. 3. Smarts - Where to be in general, knowledge of player tendencies, reading what the offense intends to do, when to help, don't stupid foul, box out etc. Bird was slow afoot, but I'm not sure he wasn't quick (as I've defined it) which I think is more important. Yes, you can compensate for #1 & #2 up to a point. But I actually think it's much easier for a good defender to be effective offensively than vice verse. A good defender IF he can learn to shoot the three at 35-36% or better is already effective offensively. He just needs 1-2 teammates who can break down the defense, which pretty much every offense has to have anyway.
Those two are not even in the same realm as Ant. I agree. I think it's much easier to take a D player and make him effective on O. Unless he just plain can't shoot. Those guys couldn't shoot, but they weren't guards either and they could dunk so they still had to be defended, and their defense was off the charts. I also think that as your team gets higher and higher caliber, closer to championship level, adding a D player helps more than adding an O player. You start to get diminishing returns on O players because there is only one ball.
