Re: [Celtic_Pride] Re: Adrian Griffin signs with Mavs

[Kestas <Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu>]

At 00:02 7/28/2001 -0700, you wrote:

>I am of the opposite opinion actually. Offensively (relatively) abled Matt
>Gieger can't play D. 

Which is no doubt why he's making $10M/yr. while defensive specialists are
closer to the NBA minimum. Look, if you assume that the NBA talent market
is driven by supply and demand (which it is, for the most part), and that
teams pay more for qualities that are in short supply than those that are
abundant, the verdict is very clear: offensive abilities are valued much
more than are defensive abilities.  If you doubt me, just check the
salaries of Antoine Walker and Glenn Robinson, and compare them to the
earnings of Bruce Bowen and Adrian Griffin. 

> Mutombo is a D player first, later developed (many seasons
>later) a nice O game. 

If that's the case, why did he have the highest ppg (16.6) in his career in
his FIRST season in the NBA? While Mutombo definitely has a defensive bent,
he does not fall into the category of "defensive specialist". He's an elite
center who's a top rebounder and shotblocker, and who can score when called
upon (just check out how his scoring average rose in 2001 playoffs with the
level of competition). He's rather like Parish, but better. 

> Further examples of good offensive players who can't play
>(or won't play) D like Ceballos, Dell Curry, our Kenny Anderson. 

Now you're getting warm. It's more the case of 'won't' than 'can't'. Sure,
'longer' and quicker players can be considered to be more genetically
talented for defense, but D is still "95% perspiration and 5% inspiration".
 Defense is destruction of opponent's offense, and destroying is always
easier than creating. 
Kestas