Steve Nash really should have won multiple championships.

[One_and_Done]

I'm getting a bit annoyed by your mixing up of arguments, blatant exaggerations, your ignorance of circumstances and suggestive questions. What are we talking about? It has been said that Nash could run great offenses.

Yes, the Suns missed the playoffs in 2008-09, when they traded for Shaq who was an ill-fitting piece for that team that was in quite a turmoil with players not being happy with the change of style, leading to a mid-season trade (Diaw and Bell for Dudley and Richardson), and they also had to deal with injury problems again (Stoudemire missing 29 games). Do you realize that despite that they still won 46 games which would have been enough to reach the playoffs in most other seasons which is another sign how competitive the Western Conference was during Nash's prime?

Two games more than Marbury won with two rookies and Shawn Marion.

Your claim is that without the success Nash might not be an HoFer or no more than All-NBA Third Team. Quite a straw man argument as noone else has talked about that. The claim is that Nash was an all-time great passer / playmaker / creator of easy scoring opportunities and that he made his teammates better

.

If that’s how you feel fine. You can’t take away what he did in PHX. I just asked if you think he was an all time passer when he was with the Mavs?

One down season that would normally would still have been participating in the playoffs does change that how? Mind that Nash still averaged almost 10 apg in this system nevertheless and that they still had the second-best offensive rating of all teams that season. Their biggest problem was that they sucked on defense. Hardly Nash's fault as PGs are the least effective players for a team's overall defense in most cases. The Nash-led Suns of 08-09 were still great offensively. Even without SSOL. Nash did his job, and he made that offense way more than that offense made him.

Ignorance of circumstance. That team played 50 something games with Porter and 31 games with Gentry who resestablished the run and gun style.

Literally immediately after firing porter and returning to running and gunning they had 3 straight 140 point games.

With Porter Nash averaged:

13.8 points, 3.8 TO, 9.8 assists, 41 percent from three, and 46 percent from FG. This is with Amare

Not bad numbers at all but José Calderon had almost identical numbers that same season.

With Gentry he averaged

18.7 points 2.6 TO, 9.6, 47 percent from 3 and nearly 55 percent from the field

This is without Amare

Under porter they averaged about 103 points per page. That team averaged 115 points per page, again this is without Amare. So Nash wasn’t leading a top five offense when under Porter. Under D’antoni’s assistant he did.

As had been said: Just watch some games or at least an analysis like this video:

I was fully immersed in basketball at this time. You get no argument for me that Nash was an incredible HOF level pg in PHX, but it took that system for that to be the case and other PGs could have benefitted from that system as well or done even better. Thats my only argument.

Marbury was putting up good totals and per game stats, but he lacked efficiency. And he had not really proven that he could make his teammates much better. There's some evidence to that: 12 years without ever running a more than mediocre team offense.

His second year in the league the Wolves they averaged the second most ppg in the league. Outside of that…what teams did Marbury play on that could have been a top 5 offense?

You will again point to his teammates but as already answered to that: Nash did not have all-time greats all the time around him due to injuries and lack of depth due to team management, and nevertheless the Suns were scoring like crazy with great efficiency.

You think that’s because he’s Steve Nash, I think it’s because he played for two of the most innovative offensive head coaches of our time and in Phoenix he played for one of their disciples. When he played with Don Nelson he was all nba third team at best. That 50 plus games without one of those two he was not running a top 5 offense.

Ironically, the Knicks scored the 4th most points that same season with Chris Duhon running point.

For years and years. I don't care about awards. I've seen him play for many teams that had exceptionally great offenses, and that led to respectable team success. Only thing missing is winning championships but that has also been explained: There were some other even better teams around that Nash's team were running into for years.

I’ve seen him play too. The reason his teams didn’t win championships is because they couldn’t play defense.

The Suns failed in 09 because of people like you, who held Nash in low regard because they cared too much about irrelevant nonsense like ppg, "defence", and the need for "low post scoring". Trading Marion for Shaq was a horrific move, as Steve Kerr and Mike D later admitted, as was bringing in a "old school" coach who tried to "run everything through Shaq".

[DimesandKnicks]

I can't believe there's a Marbury vs. Nash discussion going.

Marbury was an incredible talent in terms of his downhill driving and ball control. He was really hard to keep out of the paint, and had "a bag" once he got in there, both as a scorer and a passer. He was a really good athlete.

But Marbury had some really ugly warts. **** selection was a major problem. He could get into the paint like nobody's business but once he got there, he was a really poor scorer. In his prime he was pretty good (not great) from floater range, but total barf around the rim (never once in his career did he finish at least 60% of his rim attempts over a season). On top of being weak at the rim, Marbury couldn't shoot the 3. He really needed to be a step or 2 inside the line and he never improved his range. He was good (not great) at long 2s, and well below average at shooting 3s.

On offense there simply is zero comparison. Nash was better at everything, despite Marbury having the more obvious physical advantages (first step and strength). Nash is the better shooter from every spot at the floor, especially at the rim, in the paint, and from 3.

Marbury was also even worse than Nash on defense. While Nash had serious physical limitations on defense in his prime, he was generally someone who put his frail body in the correct place (led the league in charges before it was cool). Marbury was a total ham on defense in his prime. A lazy defender with no grasp of where to be, and a bad habit of gambling on steals. He would ball hawk for a few seconds sometimes, and you'd see his defensive potential in terms of quickness and good hands, but defense just wasn't something Marbury cared about or worked at enough.

I do think Marbury was very unlucky and never played on a good team (the 2003 Suns were his best team). Marbury might have looked better in a more competitive environment. But I also think he deserves a bit of a ding here, because he forced his way off Minnesota because he wanted "his own team" (it was a weird in the post-Jordan era). He could have played the whole first half of his career next to Kevin Garnett, a player who would have covered for him on defense, and given him all the space and shots he wanted on offense, but a 21-year-old Marbury just said no.

Like DimesandKnicks... you can hate on Nash, but Marbury isn't the right guy to use to diminish him. Regardless of team context, Nash was better at basketball. I'd say Marbury's first step is literally the only thing he has over Nash. Everything else is Nash "and it's not even close".

You’ve misunderstood my sentiments. I’m not comparing Marbury to Nash. I’m saying Marbury could have succeeded in that system as well. I bought up Marbury in response to someone saying Nash replaced a 29 win Suns team and drove them to 60 games, when the reality is that 29 win team was coached by Frank Johnson, traded Marbury and didn’t have Amare for a full season.

You wrote a whole to argue something that no one is arguing.

I’m not a Nash hater because I recognize the fact that SSOL is clearly the driving force behind him becoming a HOF. He’s simply overrated. He’s a back to back MVP that missed the Allstar game and all nba selections after playing more than half a season without that system, while when that system was reintroduced he returned to putting up HOF numbers in the same season.

This puts him in a class with Kareem, MJ, Bird, Magic, Curry, Lebron, Duncan, Magic, Wilt, Russell

These are people in everyone’s top 10. Moses is another one and he won an MVP with two different teams. Giannis won back to back, DPOY and a championship. Jokic will likely join that club. All of these players won championships. Nash didn’t have that impact, and without that system he was a sometimes all nba level player

[DimesandKnicks]

I'm getting a bit annoyed by your mixing up of arguments, blatant exaggerations, your ignorance of circumstances and suggestive questions. What are we talking about? It has been said that Nash could run great offenses.

Yes, the Suns missed the playoffs in 2008-09, when they traded for Shaq who was an ill-fitting piece for that team that was in quite a turmoil with players not being happy with the change of style, leading to a mid-season trade (Diaw and Bell for Dudley and Richardson), and they also had to deal with injury problems again (Stoudemire missing 29 games). Do you realize that despite that they still won 46 games which would have been enough to reach the playoffs in most other seasons which is another sign how competitive the Western Conference was during Nash's prime?

Two games more than Marbury won with two rookies and Shawn Marion.

Your claim is that without the success Nash might not be an HoFer or no more than All-NBA Third Team. Quite a straw man argument as noone else has talked about that. The claim is that Nash was an all-time great passer / playmaker / creator of easy scoring opportunities and that he made his teammates better

.

If that’s how you feel fine. You can’t take away what he did in PHX. I just asked if you think he was an all time passer when he was with the Mavs?

One down season that would normally would still have been participating in the playoffs does change that how? Mind that Nash still averaged almost 10 apg in this system nevertheless and that they still had the second-best offensive rating of all teams that season. Their biggest problem was that they sucked on defense. Hardly Nash's fault as PGs are the least effective players for a team's overall defense in most cases. The Nash-led Suns of 08-09 were still great offensively. Even without SSOL. Nash did his job, and he made that offense way more than that offense made him.

Ignorance of circumstance. That team played 50 something games with Porter and 31 games with Gentry who resestablished the run and gun style.

Literally immediately after firing porter and returning to running and gunning they had 3 straight 140 point games.

With Porter Nash averaged:

13.8 points, 3.8 TO, 9.8 assists, 41 percent from three, and 46 percent from FG. This is with Amare

Not bad numbers at all but José Calderon had almost identical numbers that same season.

With Gentry he averaged

18.7 points 2.6 TO, 9.6, 47 percent from 3 and nearly 55 percent from the field

This is without Amare

Under porter they averaged about 103 points per page. That team averaged 115 points per page, again this is without Amare. So Nash wasn’t leading a top five offense when under Porter. Under D’antoni’s assistant he did.

As had been said: Just watch some games or at least an analysis like this video:

I was fully immersed in basketball at this time. You get no argument for me that Nash was an incredible HOF level pg in PHX, but it took that system for that to be the case and other PGs could have benefitted from that system as well or done even better. Thats my only argument.

Marbury was putting up good totals and per game stats, but he lacked efficiency. And he had not really proven that he could make his teammates much better. There's some evidence to that: 12 years without ever running a more than mediocre team offense.

His second year in the league the Wolves they averaged the second most ppg in the league. Outside of that…what teams did Marbury play on that could have been a top 5 offense?

You will again point to his teammates but as already answered to that: Nash did not have all-time greats all the time around him due to injuries and lack of depth due to team management, and nevertheless the Suns were scoring like crazy with great efficiency.

You think that’s because he’s Steve Nash, I think it’s because he played for two of the most innovative offensive head coaches of our time and in Phoenix he played for one of their disciples. When he played with Don Nelson he was all nba third team at best. That 50 plus games without one of those two he was not running a top 5 offense.

Ironically, the Knicks scored the 4th most points that same season with Chris Duhon running point.

For years and years. I don't care about awards. I've seen him play for many teams that had exceptionally great offenses, and that led to respectable team success. Only thing missing is winning championships but that has also been explained: There were some other even better teams around that Nash's team were running into for years.

I’ve seen him play too. The reason his teams didn’t win championships is because they couldn’t play defense.

The Suns failed in 09 because of people like you, who held Nash in low regard because they cared too much about irrelevant nonsense like ppg, "defence", and the need for "low post scoring". Trading Marion for Shaq was a horrific move, as Steve Kerr and Mike D later admitted, as was bringing in a "old school" coach who tried to "run everything through Shaq".

Sounds like your saying they failed in 09 because they went away from SSOL. You’re making my point
Defense is irrelevant nonsense boy bye

[canada_dry]

Two games more than Marbury won with two rookies and Shawn Marion.

.

If that’s how you feel fine. You can’t take away what he did in PHX. I just asked if you think he was an all time passer when he was with the Mavs?



Ignorance of circumstance. That team played 50 something games with Porter and 31 games with Gentry who resestablished the run and gun style.

Literally immediately after firing porter and returning to running and gunning they had 3 straight 140 point games.

With Porter Nash averaged:

13.8 points, 3.8 TO, 9.8 assists, 41 percent from three, and 46 percent from FG. This is with Amare

Not bad numbers at all but José Calderon had almost identical numbers that same season.

With Gentry he averaged

18.7 points 2.6 TO, 9.6, 47 percent from 3 and nearly 55 percent from the field

This is without Amare

Under porter they averaged about 103 points per page. That team averaged 115 points per page, again this is without Amare. So Nash wasn’t leading a top five offense when under Porter. Under D’antoni’s assistant he did.



I was fully immersed in basketball at this time. You get no argument for me that Nash was an incredible HOF level pg in PHX, but it took that system for that to be the case and other PGs could have benefitted from that system as well or done even better. Thats my only argument.



His second year in the league the Wolves they averaged the second most ppg in the league. Outside of that…what teams did Marbury play on that could have been a top 5 offense?



You think that’s because he’s Steve Nash, I think it’s because he played for two of the most innovative offensive head coaches of our time and in Phoenix he played for one of their disciples. When he played with Don Nelson he was all nba third team at best. That 50 plus games without one of those two he was not running a top 5 offense.

Ironically, the Knicks scored the 4th most points that same season with Chris Duhon running point.



I’ve seen him play too. The reason his teams didn’t win championships is because they couldn’t play defense.

The Suns failed in 09 because of people like you, who held Nash in low regard because they cared too much about irrelevant nonsense like ppg, "defence", and the need for "low post scoring". Trading Marion for Shaq was a horrific move, as Steve Kerr and Mike D later admitted, as was bringing in a "old school" coach who tried to "run everything through Shaq".

Sounds like your saying they failed in 09 because they went away from SSOL. You’re making my point
Defense is irrelevant nonsense boy bye

A non ssol offense could still be great with nash. Just as long as the ball is in his hands. Not playing through old af shaq. Making him look like an all star one last time.(went to the cavs eith lebron and looked done the very next year) Context. See: 2011 and 2012. Old pg. Slower paced team. Old team in general. 40 y/o Grant hill in 2011 and Gortat in 2012, were his best teammate. Top 10 offense regardless. Marbury could never. Most pgs in history could never. In their prime. Let alone at 37 and 38 y/o. Kidd included.

Great offensive pgs are best with the ball in their hands. What a revelation. Ive tried to explain this to you multiple times about usage when he was on the mavs.(you said youd reply to the user that brought up nash not having the ball in dallas, which you haven't done yet. Im interested to see the response)

Is your starting pg on the knicks a system pg? Thats my main question. Brunson went from above average starter at best on the mavs playing without the ball a lot, to playing well in the playoffs without luka because he had the ball more, to struggling again when luka played... to being a top 5 mvp candidate with the ball consistently in his hands. Id argue thats a bigger and more improbable jump than all NBA 3rd team uber skilled pg to mvp. Just by having the offense revolved around him on the knicks.

System player or nah?

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[One_and_Done]

Point guard is the position where D matters the least.

[Persi]

Most overrated player of all time. Won MVPs he didn’t deserve.

It's not a post about Embiid.

[Chokic]

Most overrated player of all time. Won MVPs he didn’t deserve.

It's not a post about Embiid.

Embiid should be a 4 time mvp right now had he not been riddled w/ injuries.

[DimesandKnicks]

Great offensive pgs are best with the ball in their hands. What a revelation. Ive tried to explain this to you multiple times about usage when he was on the mavs.(you said youd reply to the user that brought up nash not having the ball in dallas, which you haven't done yet. Im interested to see the response)

Yea and I highlighted that his USG on the Mav’s was HIGHER then when he was on the Suns

Nash’s USG over his last four years in Dallas was 22.3. His USG from 30 to 35 in PHX was 22.2

His back to back MVP years his USG was 22

His USG for his entire time in PHX was 21.8

His USG as a starter in Dallas was 22.1 (I.e more than his time in PHX)

His greatest USG pct was his second to last year in Dallas 24.4. The next year, when you say Nelson took the ball out of his hands in favor of Walker, that team scored more PPG and had a higher Offensive rating.

This means your assertion that his USG in Dallas was less than it was in PHX is objectively false. We’ve gone over this already. This isn’t a valid argument.

Is your starting pg on the knicks a system pg? Thats my main question. Brunson went from above average starter at best on the mavs playing without the ball a lot, to playing well in the playoffs without luka because he had the ball more, to struggling again when luka played... to being a top 5 mvp candidate with the ball consistently in his hands. Id argue thats a bigger and more improbable jump than all NBA 3rd team uber skilled pg to mvp. Just by having the offense revolved around him on the knicks.

System player or nah?

Yea; no. First off, Brunson played SG along side Luka. That automatically going to take the ball out of his hands. Secondly, unlike Nash…Brunson’s USG in Dallas compared to New York is significantly greater while Nash’s is marginal:

Jalen Brunson’s USG in the playoffs in his last year with Dallas was 27.8. His USG in the RS was 21.9. This explains the increase in production.

His USG his first two years with the Knicks is a WHOOPING 29.9. This is a HUGE lift in possessions he was involved in. He has had a significant jump in production and impact but that’s accompanied by a huge jump in USG. This is objectively not the case for Nash so what’s your explanation for that?


My main question to you…how old are you Mr. Garbage Man?

[cupcakesnake]

I can't believe there's a Marbury vs. Nash discussion going.

Marbury was an incredible talent in terms of his downhill driving and ball control. He was really hard to keep out of the paint, and had "a bag" once he got in there, both as a scorer and a passer. He was a really good athlete.

But Marbury had some really ugly warts. **** selection was a major problem. He could get into the paint like nobody's business but once he got there, he was a really poor scorer. In his prime he was pretty good (not great) from floater range, but total barf around the rim (never once in his career did he finish at least 60% of his rim attempts over a season). On top of being weak at the rim, Marbury couldn't shoot the 3. He really needed to be a step or 2 inside the line and he never improved his range. He was good (not great) at long 2s, and well below average at shooting 3s.

On offense there simply is zero comparison. Nash was better at everything, despite Marbury having the more obvious physical advantages (first step and strength). Nash is the better shooter from every spot at the floor, especially at the rim, in the paint, and from 3.

Marbury was also even worse than Nash on defense. While Nash had serious physical limitations on defense in his prime, he was generally someone who put his frail body in the correct place (led the league in charges before it was cool). Marbury was a total ham on defense in his prime. A lazy defender with no grasp of where to be, and a bad habit of gambling on steals. He would ball hawk for a few seconds sometimes, and you'd see his defensive potential in terms of quickness and good hands, but defense just wasn't something Marbury cared about or worked at enough.

I do think Marbury was very unlucky and never played on a good team (the 2003 Suns were his best team). Marbury might have looked better in a more competitive environment. But I also think he deserves a bit of a ding here, because he forced his way off Minnesota because he wanted "his own team" (it was a weird in the post-Jordan era). He could have played the whole first half of his career next to Kevin Garnett, a player who would have covered for him on defense, and given him all the space and shots he wanted on offense, but a 21-year-old Marbury just said no.

Like DimesandKnicks... you can hate on Nash, but Marbury isn't the right guy to use to diminish him. Regardless of team context, Nash was better at basketball. I'd say Marbury's first step is literally the only thing he has over Nash. Everything else is Nash "and it's not even close".

You’ve misunderstood my sentiments. I’m not comparing Marbury to Nash. I’m saying Marbury could have succeeded in that system as well. I bought up Marbury in response to someone saying Nash replaced a 29 win Suns team and drove them to 60 games, when the reality is that 29 win team was coached by Frank Johnson, traded Marbury and didn’t have Amare for a full season.

You wrote a whole to argue something that no one is arguing.

I’m not a Nash hater because I recognize the fact that SSOL is clearly the driving force behind him becoming a HOF. He’s simply overrated. He’s a back to back MVP that missed the Allstar game and all nba selections after playing more than half a season without that system, while when that system was reintroduced he returned to putting up HOF numbers in the same season.

This puts him in a class with Kareem, MJ, Bird, Magic, Curry, Lebron, Duncan, Magic, Wilt, Russell

These are people in everyone’s top 10. Moses is another one and he won an MVP with two different teams. Giannis won back to back, DPOY and a championship. Jokic will likely join that club. All of these players won championships. Nash didn’t have that impact, and without that system he was a sometimes all nba level player

Ok gotcha. Sorry for jumping in halfway through and missing your initial point, and thanks for re-clarifying what you're saying.

Here's what I agree and disagree with:
- Nash is an outlier in terms of multiple MVP winners. Most of the multi-MVPs are simply the very best players of all-time. You could argue that 12 of the 15 multi-MVPs are straight up the 12 best players ever (or will be since Jokic and Giannis are still mid-career)

- However, Nash isn't the only outlier. Nash is a top 20-30 guy, which puts him in a very similar range to the Malones and Bob Pettit. In the PC's boards current top 100 project: Karl was 19th, Moses 23rd, Nash 24th, Petit 31. Players who are top 30ish, lots of them won single MVPs, and many easily could have won 2. Nash was definitely lucky to win 2, but he's in a tier of talent/impact where winning multiple MVPs is a possibility. There are better players than Nash who only won 1 (Shaq, Hakeem, KG, Dirk, D-Rob, West, Kobe, Big O), but there's some bad luck there.

- You say Nash "didn't have that impact" but there's a TON of basketball analysis out there that sees Nash as one of the most impactful offensive guards of all-time.

- I think you're being a little too brutal with how you're assessing the non-D'Antoni years. The 2009 year was simply a mess for reasons that had nothing to do with Nash. They tried to play a 36-year-old Shaq next to Amar'e, often while playing another bad shooter in Grant Hill. It wasn't just not SSOL, it was a really awful concept, especially because Shaq and Amar'e were 2 of the worst defensive bigs in the league. It was the worst defense of the Nash era. (Raja Bell also missed the season). Despite this horrible team building and coaching, Nash still led the Suns to the #2 offense and 46 wins. I really don't care about making or not making the all-star team lol. So what if voters messed that up and erroneously decided guys like Tony Parker and Amar'e were better than Nash that year?

- I also disagree with Alvin Gentry bringing back the same offense. It re-prioritized Nash/Amar'e pick & roll (what offense wouldn't?), and brought back more shooting (Frye, Dudley playing big roles off the bench). I disagree in general with what you think SSOL is if you think it's a system that boosted Nash. It's like saying "Lebronball" boosted Lebron. When you have a guy who can create championship level offense as a ball handler, you tend to put the ball in his hands and build the roster around that. What do you think was unique about SSOL that artificially boosted Nash? You could put other ball handlers in that "system" and yeah it would help that post good assist numbers, but it's not guaranteed to create historic offense. Having a guy who is a historically good passer and historically good shooter makes a massive difference. Marbury would have struggled in that system because he was a piss poor decision maker and a bad shooter. Maybe Marbury posts better assist numbers, but his inability to shoot from deep, and not having the patience to probe the paint, would not generate the same offensive efficiency. New York never had a great offense under D'Antoni. D'Antoni had 2 HISTORIC offenses with Nash, and Gentry had another one. D'Antoni's Houston teams were almost at that level offensively but not quite.

- Basically what you're saying with your final statement:

and without that system he was a sometimes all nba level player

can be said about anyone. If you don't use a player optimally, they'll be worse. If you asked MJ to be in a system where he shot more 3s and wasn't allowed to attack in the midrange, he'd be worse. If you asked Lebron to be less of a point guard, he'd be worse. We saw Nash used suboptimally in Dallas. Dallas never spammed pick & roll with Nash or Dirk. Nellie liked to tinker and use all the toys in his toy chest. Nash still got to contribute to elite offense in Dallas, but sometimes he had to space on the wing while Finley or (gulp) Antoine Walker went to work. Imo, if Nellie had just been like: ok we do everything around Nash and Dirk's 2-man game, Dallas might have won a championship. Anyways, it's not really a strong point I don't think to say that Nash needed to be used right. I don't see how you're saying anything more than that with the SSOL point. Nash spent his 30s optimized, and spent his 20s unoptimized.

[canada_dry]

Great offensive pgs are best with the ball in their hands. What a revelation. Ive tried to explain this to you multiple times about usage when he was on the mavs.(you said youd reply to the user that brought up nash not having the ball in dallas, which you haven't done yet. Im interested to see the response)

Yea and I highlighted that his USG on the Mav’s was HIGHER then when he was on the Suns

Nash’s USG over his last four years in Dallas was 22.3. His USG from 30 to 35 in PHX was 22.2

His back to back MVP years his USG was 22

His USG for his entire time in PHX was 21.8

His USG as a starter in Dallas was 22.1 (I.e more than his time in PHX)

His greatest USG pct was his second to last year in Dallas 24.4. The next year, when you say Nelson took the ball out of his hands in favor of Walker, that team scored more PPG and had a higher Offensive rating.

This means your assertion that his USG in Dallas was less than it was in PHX is objectively false. We’ve gone over this already. This isn’t a valid argument.

Is your starting pg on the knicks a system pg? Thats my main question. Brunson went from above average starter at best on the mavs playing without the ball a lot, to playing well in the playoffs without luka because he had the ball more, to struggling again when luka played... to being a top 5 mvp candidate with the ball consistently in his hands. Id argue thats a bigger and more improbable jump than all NBA 3rd team uber skilled pg to mvp. Just by having the offense revolved around him on the knicks.

System player or nah?

Yea; no. First off, Brunson played SG along side Luka. That automatically going to take the ball out of his hands. Secondly, unlike Nash…Brunson’s USG in Dallas compared to New York is significantly greater while Nash’s is marginal:

Jalen Brunson’s USG in the playoffs in his last year with Dallas was 27.8. His USG in the RS was 21.9. This explains the increase in production.

His USG his first two years with the Knicks is a WHOOPING 29.9. This is a HUGE lift in possessions he was involved in. He has had a significant jump in production and impact but that’s accompanied by a huge jump in USG. This is objectively not the case for Nash so what’s your explanation for that?


My main question to you…how old are you Mr. Garbage Man?

So more ball= more effective.

Less ball = less effective.

Thanks. Exactly what ive been saying.

Back to basketball reference for you and reciting the usage %. But anyone that watched knows he had the ball a LOT more in Phoenix. People that don't just rely on basketball reference. Amare had a higher usage % than nash every year. Nash had the ball a lot more. What gives?

The main difference between dallas and Phoenix was more ball and more ball handling. More decision making. For the 100th time.

Why dont you hold Brunson to the same criticism? Hes only been great with more of the ball? From average to mvp candidate? Quite the leap, eh?

Also its funny how you ignore 2004 when he was sub 20% in usage and thats the year he had a down year playing off ball a lot to point antoine freaking walker. Thats always the year i brought up in our past discussions...2003 was a pretty good mix of scoring and playmaking feom nash while also keeping finley involved and happy and dirk going. We know now they should have just spammed dirk nash pick n roll though, but that 2003 team was very good regardless.

And we're in about the same age range, believe it or not.



Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[canada_dry]

I can't believe there's a Marbury vs. Nash discussion going.

Marbury was an incredible talent in terms of his downhill driving and ball control. He was really hard to keep out of the paint, and had "a bag" once he got in there, both as a scorer and a passer. He was a really good athlete.

But Marbury had some really ugly warts. **** selection was a major problem. He could get into the paint like nobody's business but once he got there, he was a really poor scorer. In his prime he was pretty good (not great) from floater range, but total barf around the rim (never once in his career did he finish at least 60% of his rim attempts over a season). On top of being weak at the rim, Marbury couldn't shoot the 3. He really needed to be a step or 2 inside the line and he never improved his range. He was good (not great) at long 2s, and well below average at shooting 3s.

On offense there simply is zero comparison. Nash was better at everything, despite Marbury having the more obvious physical advantages (first step and strength). Nash is the better shooter from every spot at the floor, especially at the rim, in the paint, and from 3.

Marbury was also even worse than Nash on defense. While Nash had serious physical limitations on defense in his prime, he was generally someone who put his frail body in the correct place (led the league in charges before it was cool). Marbury was a total ham on defense in his prime. A lazy defender with no grasp of where to be, and a bad habit of gambling on steals. He would ball hawk for a few seconds sometimes, and you'd see his defensive potential in terms of quickness and good hands, but defense just wasn't something Marbury cared about or worked at enough.

I do think Marbury was very unlucky and never played on a good team (the 2003 Suns were his best team). Marbury might have looked better in a more competitive environment. But I also think he deserves a bit of a ding here, because he forced his way off Minnesota because he wanted "his own team" (it was a weird in the post-Jordan era). He could have played the whole first half of his career next to Kevin Garnett, a player who would have covered for him on defense, and given him all the space and shots he wanted on offense, but a 21-year-old Marbury just said no.

Like DimesandKnicks... you can hate on Nash, but Marbury isn't the right guy to use to diminish him. Regardless of team context, Nash was better at basketball. I'd say Marbury's first step is literally the only thing he has over Nash. Everything else is Nash "and it's not even close".

You’ve misunderstood my sentiments. I’m not comparing Marbury to Nash. I’m saying Marbury could have succeeded in that system as well. I bought up Marbury in response to someone saying Nash replaced a 29 win Suns team and drove them to 60 games, when the reality is that 29 win team was coached by Frank Johnson, traded Marbury and didn’t have Amare for a full season.

You wrote a whole to argue something that no one is arguing.

I’m not a Nash hater because I recognize the fact that SSOL is clearly the driving force behind him becoming a HOF. He’s simply overrated. He’s a back to back MVP that missed the Allstar game and all nba selections after playing more than half a season without that system, while when that system was reintroduced he returned to putting up HOF numbers in the same season.

This puts him in a class with Kareem, MJ, Bird, Magic, Curry, Lebron, Duncan, Magic, Wilt, Russell

These are people in everyone’s top 10. Moses is another one and he won an MVP with two different teams. Giannis won back to back, DPOY and a championship. Jokic will likely join that club. All of these players won championships. Nash didn’t have that impact, and without that system he was a sometimes all nba level player

Ok gotcha. Sorry for jumping in halfway through and missing your initial point, and thanks for re-clarifying what you're saying.

Here's what I agree and disagree with:
- Nash is an outlier in terms of multiple MVP winners. Most of the multi-MVPs are simply the very best players of all-time. You could argue that 12 of the 15 multi-MVPs are straight up the 12 best players ever (or will be since Jokic and Giannis are still mid-career)

- However, Nash isn't the only outlier. Nash is a top 20-30 guy, which puts him in a very similar range to the Malones and Bob Pettit. In the PC's boards current top 100 project: Karl was 19th, Moses 23rd, Nash 24th, Petit 31. Players who are top 30ish, lots of them won single MVPs, and many easily could have won 2. Nash was definitely lucky to win 2, but he's in a tier of talent/impact where winning multiple MVPs is a possibility. There are better players than Nash who only won 1 (Shaq, Hakeem, KG, Dirk, D-Rob, West, Kobe, Big O), but there's some bad luck there.

- You say Nash "didn't have that impact" but there's a TON of basketball analysis out there that sees Nash as one of the most impactful offensive guards of all-time.

- I think you're being a little too brutal with how you're assessing the non-D'Antoni years. The 2009 year was simply a mess for reasons that had nothing to do with Nash. They tried to play a 36-year-old Shaq next to Amar'e, often while playing another bad shooter in Grant Hill. It wasn't just not SSOL, it was a really awful concept, especially because Shaq and Amar'e were 2 of the worst defensive bigs in the league. It was the worst defense of the Nash era. (Raja Bell also missed the season). Despite this horrible team building and coaching, Nash still led the Suns to the #2 offense and 46 wins. I really don't care about making or not making the all-star team lol. So what if voters messed that up and erroneously decided guys like Tony Parker and Amar'e were better than Nash that year?

- I also disagree with Alvin Gentry bringing back the same offense. It re-prioritized Nash/Amar'e pick & roll (what offense wouldn't?), and brought back more shooting (Frye, Dudley playing big roles off the bench). I disagree in general with what you think SSOL is if you think it's a system that boosted Nash. It's like saying "Lebronball" boosted Lebron. When you have a guy who can create championship level offense as a ball handler, you tend to put the ball in his hands and build the roster around that. What do you think was unique about SSOL that artificially boosted Nash? You could put other ball handlers in that "system" and yeah it would help that post good assist numbers, but it's not guaranteed to create historic offense. Having a guy who is a historically good passer and historically good shooter makes a massive difference. Marbury would have struggled in that system because he was a piss poor decision maker and a bad shooter. Maybe Marbury posts better assist numbers, but his inability to shoot from deep, and not having the patience to probe the paint, would not generate the same offensive efficiency. New York never had a great offense under D'Antoni. D'Antoni had 2 HISTORIC offenses with Nash, and Gentry had another one. D'Antoni's Houston teams were almost at that level offensively but not quite.

- Basically what you're saying with your final statement:

and without that system he was a sometimes all nba level player

can be said about anyone. If you don't use a player optimally, they'll be worse. If you asked MJ to be in a system where he shot more 3s and wasn't allowed to attack in the midrange, he'd be worse. If you asked Lebron to be less of a point guard, he'd be worse. We saw Nash used suboptimally in Dallas. Dallas never spammed pick & roll with Nash or Dirk. Nellie liked to tinker and use all the toys in his toy chest. Nash still got to contribute to elite offense in Dallas, but sometimes he had to space on the wing while Finley or (gulp) Antoine Walker went to work. Imo, if Nellie had just been like: ok we do everything around Nash and Dirk's 2-man game, Dallas might have won a championship. Anyways, it's not really a strong point I don't think to say that Nash needed to be used right. I don't see how you're saying anything more than that with the SSOL point. Nash spent his 30s optimized, and spent his 20s unoptimized.

All this has been explained to him already. Multiple times. He just chooses to live within his own narrative.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[DimesandKnicks]

Less ball = less effective.

Thanks. Exactly what ive been saying.

Yess less ball = less effective, and I just provided you with data demonstrating that there was no significant difference in Nash's USG when you compare his involvment in the Mav's offense vs the Suns offense. I

Back to basketball reference for you and reciting the usage %. But anyone that watched knows he had the ball a LOT more in Phoenix. People that don't just rely on basketball reference. Amare had a higher usage % than nash every year. Nash had the ball a lot more. What gives?

Because Amare shot more shots and got to the freethrow line nearly 10 times a game. This is a non sequitur, because we're comparing Nash to Nash.

Canada, I could just reply to your opinion that he had the ball more with "no he didn't" and you can repsond with "yes he did", and we can go back and forth until one of us gives up. I could respond by saying the Mavs were a heavy pick and roll offense where the ball was infact in Nash's hands initiating the offense...but I'm substantiating that with measurably evidence and this is something you can't do. That should tell you something young man.

Also its funny how you ignore 2004 when he was sub 20% in usage and thats the year he had a down year playing off ball a lot to point antoine freaking walker. Thats always the year i brought up in our past discussions...2003 was a pretty good mix of scoring and playmaking feom nash while also keeping finley involved and happy and dirk going. We know now they should have just spammed dirk nash pick n roll though, but that 2003 team was very good regardless.

This is me discussing the bolded in the post you literally replied too:

His greatest USG pct was his second to last year in Dallas 24.4. The next year, when you say Nelson took the ball out of his hands in favor of Walker, that team scored more PPG and had a higher Offensive rating.

I must have neglected to add that this was Nash's lowest USG rate of his prime!

Do you see how your notion about Walker tracks with their respective USG rate? How do you explain that? The ball was obseravably in NAsh's hands lesss and he had the worst USG rate of his prime? It's weird that you don't even recognize when you're making my argument for me.

Why dont you hold Brunson to the same criticism? Hes only been great with more of the ball? From average to mvp candidate? Quite the leap, eh?

Are you trolling. I did...and again its tracks with his USG rate which I provided you but I'll do it again in case you missed it:

RS in Dallas USG rate: 21.9 percent
RS ppg: 16.3

Playoffs USG rate: 27.8
PO PPG: 21.6

RS with the Knicks in year one USG: 27.2
RS PPG: 24.0

USG Rate this season: 32.5
PPG: 28.4

Let's use James Harden as another example, particulary as a player who also benefited from player under D'antoni:

Harden's RS numbers for the fist two years prior to D'antoni:
USG 31.9
28.2 ppg, 5.9 rebounds, 7.2 assist

Harden's RS numbers under D'antoni:
USG 35.7
31.2 ppg, 6.8 rebounds, 9.0 assist

Do you see how the increase in production was accompanied by an increase in that USG metric? Do you see how this increase in USG rate is also accompanied by the increased monopoly these players had on the ball?

This probably the last post I'm sending that isn't just opion based because it actually takes alot of time to gather all this data and provide it for but you just ignore it.

But maybe you can explain why you think,despite the fact that increases in USG seems to track with increases in production thus being the best metric we have to reflect a players involvement in the offense..why do you think it isn't applicable to Nash? Why do you think Nash's USG was higher in Dallas then it was in PHX, despite Nash having the ball in his significantly more in PHX than he did in Dallas? Why do you thin that the year Nash had the ball less in Dalls due to Walker that it reflected in his USG rate, but his USG rate for the rest of his prime isn't an accurate measurement of how involved he was in the offense?

[DimesandKnicks]

Ok gotcha. Sorry for jumping in halfway through and missing your initial point, and thanks for re-clarifying what you're saying.

No worries bro <3

Nash isn't the only outlier. Nash is a top 20-30 guy, which puts him in a very similar range to the Malones and Bob Pettit. In the PC's boards current top 100 project: Karl was 19th, Moses 23rd, Nash 24th, Petit 31. Players who are top 30ish, lots of them won single MVPs, and many easily could have won 2. Nash was definitely lucky to win 2, but he's in a tier of talent/impact where winning multiple MVPs is a possibility. There are better players than Nash who only won 1 (Shaq, Hakeem, KG, Dirk, D-Rob, West, Kobe, Big O), but there's some bad luck there.

Comments like these are why I consider Nash overrated. Nash is top 75 because of what he did in PHX, but there are probably 10 to 15 players in the league right now that I'd take over Nash to start a franchise and I wouldn't put him as a talent anywhere near the likes of Karl Malone and Moses Malone.

- You say Nash "didn't have that impact" but there's a TON of basketball analysis out there that sees Nash as one of the most impactful offensive guards of all-time.

I think alot of this analysis would is depended on his time in PHX. As far as being a great shooter and passer I'd be stupid to not concede that.

- I think you're being a little too brutal with how you're assessing the non-D'Antoni years. The 2009 year was simply a mess for reasons that had nothing to do with Nash. They tried to play a 36-year-old Shaq next to Amar'e, often while playing another bad shooter in Grant Hill. It wasn't just not SSOL, it was a really awful concept, especially because Shaq and Amar'e were 2 of the worst defensive bigs in the league. It was the worst defense of the Nash era. (Raja Bell also missed the season). Despite this horrible team building and coaching, Nash still led the Suns to the #2 offense and 46 wins. I really don't care about making or not making the all-star team lol. So what if voters messed that up and erroneously decided guys like Tony Parker and Amar'e were better than Nash that year?

This is kind of a mischaracterization of the season. For one, Bell didn't miss the season, he was traded along with Boris Diaw as the two were pretty much openly raging against Porter and his restrictive offense. It's also a mischaracterization to say that despite the horrible roster construction and team building, Nash still led the Suns to the No. 2 offense. That team under Porter wasn't a top five offense. The team under Gentry was the No. 1 offense in the league and the balances out the entire ranking for the team during the season. Here's what I posted to the other poster regarding the offense under Gentry and Porter:

That team played 50 something games with Porter and 31 games with Gentry who resestablished the run and gun style.

Literally immediately after firing porter and returning to running and gunning they had 3 straight 140 point games.

With Porter Nash averaged:

13.8 points, 3.8 TO, 9.8 assists, 41 percent from three, and 46 percent from FG. This is with Amare

Not bad numbers at all but José Calderon had almost identical numbers that same season.

With Gentry he averaged

18.7 points 2.6 TO, 9.6, 47 percent from 3 and nearly 55 percent from the field

This is without Amare

Under porter they averaged about 103 points per page. That team averaged 115 points per page, again this is without Amare. So Nash wasn’t leading a top five offense when under Porter. Under D’antoni’s assistant he did.

- I also disagree with Alvin Gentry bringing back the same offense. It re-prioritized Nash/Amar'e pick & roll (what offense wouldn't?), and brought back more shooting (Frye, Dudley playing big roles off the bench). I disagree in general with what you think SSOL is if you think it's a system that boosted Nash.

Whether it was the same exact offense or not, they reestablished that run and gun style. Running off makes, slip screens, spamming pick and rolls..shooting threes. Under porter Diaw got in trouble for shooting an open shot because Porter wanted him to play as a PF.

What do you think was unique about SSOL that artificially boosted Nash? You could put other ball handlers in that "system" and yeah it would help that post good assist numbers, but it's not guaranteed to create historic offense. Having a guy who is a historically good passer and historically good shooter makes a massive difference. Marbury would have struggled in that system because he was a piss poor decision maker and a bad shooter. Maybe Marbury posts better assist numbers, but his inability to shoot from deep, and not having the patience to probe the paint, would not generate the same offensive efficiency. New York never had a great offense under D'Antoni. D'Antoni had 2 HISTORIC offenses with Nash, and Gentry had another one. D'Antoni's Houston teams were almost at that level offensively but not quite.

Like I said above, running off makes, slip screens, shooting threes, 4 out, spamming pick and rolls. And the Knicks run by Chris Duhon scored the fourth most PPG under D'antoni the same season Porter ran the Suns. Duhon had a nearly identical USG rate two years prior in Chicago and averaged about 7 and 5, but under D'antoni he averaged about 10 and 7. The Knicks also scored the 2nd most ppg in 11-12 the year Melo joined them mid-season...and without checking I assume their offensive plummeted after Melo joined because he's just not the type of player that can co-exist with the type of system D'anonti likes to run. This is the year Rayond Felton avergead 17 and 9 after averaging about 12 and 6 with the Bobcats.

If you asked Lebron to be less of a point guard, he'd be worse. We saw Nash used suboptimally in Dallas. Dallas never spammed pick & roll with Nash or Dirk. Nellie liked to tinker and use all the toys in his toy chest. Nash still got to contribute to elite offense in Dallas, but sometimes he had to space on the wing while Finley or (gulp) Antoine Walker went to work. Imo, if Nellie had just been like: ok we do everything around Nash and Dirk's 2-man game, Dallas might have won a championship. Anyways, it's not really a strong point I don't think to say that Nash needed to be used right. I don't see how you're saying anything more than that with the SSOL point. Nash spent his 30s optimized, and spent his 20s unoptimized.

[/quote]

- Basically what you're saying with your final statement:

and without that system he was a sometimes all nba level player

can be said about anyone. If you don't use a player optimally, they'll be worse. If you asked MJ to be in a system where he shot more 3s and wasn't allowed to attack in the midrange, he'd be worse.

There are no other examples that I know of where that level of player became an MVP caliber player.

MJ played hero ball under Doug Collins and ran the triangle under Phil. He was regarded as the best play in the league before and after.

After the D'antoni experiment, Melo did go from 22ppg to 28 ppg after being coached by Woodson who offesnively creates motions that get players the ball where they want it with floor balance. While this is a huge jump, we've seen Melo have similiar numbers under very different coaches.

Kobe had to share the light with Shaq but he was still considered one of, if not the best SG in the league

Two years before D'antoni joined Harden, the latter still got the second most votes for MVP

Steph might be the best example but he's really not a good one. The year he won MVP under his first year with Kerr, his numbers were very similiar to his numbers under Mark Jackson. Sure, the next year he exploded to ATG level of production, but he already proved he was an MVP level player.

Nash had a good 8 years to show he was more than an All NBA level player, and he didn't surpass that until someone useed him optimally. If it takes a coach using optimally for you to truly have ATG impact, than I don't think you're really an all-time talent.

Dallas never spammed pick & roll with Nash or Dirk. Nellie liked to tinker and use all the toys in his toy chest. Nash still got to contribute to elite offense in Dallas, but sometimes he had to space on the wing while Finley or (gulp) Antoine Walker went to work. Imo, if Nellie had just been like: ok we do everything around Nash and Dirk's 2-man game, Dallas might have won a championship. Anyways, it's not really a strong point I don't think to say that Nash needed to be used right. I don't see how you're saying anything more than that with the SSOL point. Nash spent his 30s optimized, and spent his 20s unoptimized.

He may not have spammed them but he sure as hell got close. And Nellie had success with Tim Hardaway, he had succes with Baron Davis in GS and all these players put up 20 and 7 kind of numbers. People act like Nelly wasn't arguable the second best option for a player like Nash to have that all time production, yet he didn't until SSOL. If you're a great player, regardless of if your being used optimally, as with Melo in NY, with MJ in Chicago, Kobe in his early years in LA, Harden in Houston pre-D'antoni..you're still going to show out as an all-NBA first team level player/MVP candidate.

[cupcakesnake]

Comments like these are why I consider Nash overrated. Nash is top 75 because of what he did in PHX, but there are probably 10 to 15 players in the league right now that I'd take over Nash to start a franchise and I wouldn't put him as a talent anywhere near the likes of Karl Malone and Moses Malone.

Not really anywhere to go with this. We already know you think Nash isn't as good as other people think he is.

I think alot of this analysis would is depended on his time in PHX. As far as being a great shooter and passer I'd be stupid to not concede that.

Yes but... he played 8 seasons in Phoenix. It's not a cute little stretch. It's almost half his full career and most of his prime.

This is kind of a mischaracterization of the season. For one, Bell didn't miss the season, he was traded along with Boris Diaw as the two were pretty much openly raging against Porter and his restrictive offense. It's also a mischaracterization to say that despite the horrible roster construction and team building, Nash still led the Suns to the No. 2 offense. That team under Porter wasn't a top five offense. The team under Gentry was the No. 1 offense in the league and the balances out the entire ranking for the team during the season. Here's what I posted to the other poster regarding the offense under Gentry and Porter:

That team played 50 something games with Porter and 31 games with Gentry who resestablished the run and gun style.

Literally immediately after firing porter and returning to running and gunning they had 3 straight 140 point games.

With Porter Nash averaged:

13.8 points, 3.8 TO, 9.8 assists, 41 percent from three, and 46 percent from FG. This is with Amare

Not bad numbers at all but José Calderon had almost identical numbers that same season.

With Gentry he averaged

18.7 points 2.6 TO, 9.6, 47 percent from 3 and nearly 55 percent from the field

This is without Amare

Under porter they averaged about 103 points per page. That team averaged 115 points per page, again this is without Amare. So Nash wasn’t leading a top five offense when under Porter. Under D’antoni’s assistant he did.

Like I said above, running off makes, slip screens, shooting threes, 4 out, spamming pick and rolls. And the Knicks run by Chris Duhon scored the fourth most PPG under D'antoni the same season Porter ran the Suns. Duhon had a nearly identical USG rate two years prior in Chicago and averaged about 7 and 5, but under D'antoni he averaged about 10 and 7. The Knicks also scored the 2nd most ppg in 11-12 the year Melo joined them mid-season...and without checking I assume their offensive plummeted after Melo joined because he's just not the type of player that can co-exist with the type of system D'anonti likes to run. This is the year Rayond Felton avergead 17 and 9 after averaging about 12 and 6 with the Bobcats.

I did honestly forget about the timing of the Diaw/Bell trade, but I don't think it really makes any difference. The team was poorly constucted and didn't have 3-point shooting. The front office and coach experimented and it wasn't a good idea. You characterizing it as: hey look here's Nash in another reasonably good system and it didn't work! When in reality it's: here's Nash is a clear poorly designed environment.

And yet... those 51 games of Porter still produced a 111 Offensive rating, which still would have been a top 5 offense in league on the season. So all you've proven here is: put an really badly designed team around Nash and hey still top 5 offense. The ugly Terry Porter offense with Nash was still better that year than: the defending champ Celtics, the Dirk/Kidd/Terry Mavericks, the Billups/Melo Nuggets, the D.Will/Boozer/Okur Jazz.

Not sure I understand your point with comparing it to Jose Calderon. In Calderon's very best year, he put up box score numbers like that. But if you're trying to say Nash=Calderon in another system... nvm I'm not going to address that because I know you know there are functional differences in their game, and even statistically beyond the boxscore there's just no comparison to be made here.

You keep using PPG, but that just indicates pace. The Chris Duhon team you're talking about was 2nd in pace, but 17th in offense. Nash wasn't impressive because of pace, he was impressive because he his teams produced the best offense in the NBA almost every year, and he led some of the best offenses in league history.

There are no other examples that I know of where that level of player became an MVP caliber player.

MJ played hero ball under Doug Collins and ran the triangle under Phil. He was regarded as the best play in the league before and after.

After the D'antoni experiment, Melo did go from 22ppg to 28 ppg after being coached by Woodson who offesnively creates motions that get players the ball where they want it with floor balance. While this is a huge jump, we've seen Melo have similiar numbers under very different coaches.

Kobe had to share the light with Shaq but he was still considered one of, if not the best SG in the league

Two years before D'antoni joined Harden, the latter still got the second most votes for MVP

Steph might be the best example but he's really not a good one. The year he won MVP under his first year with Kerr, his numbers were very similiar to his numbers under Mark Jackson. Sure, the next year he exploded to ATG level of production, but he already proved he was an MVP level player.

Nash had a good 8 years to show he was more than an All NBA level player, and he didn't surpass that until someone useed him optimally. If it takes a coach using optimally for you to truly have ATG impact, than I don't think you're really an all-time talent

Well Nash... was an all-NBA player in his 6th and 7th season. Basically as soon as Nash was healthy and in a starting role, he ramped up pretty quick. He was top 3 in MIP 2 years in a row and made 2 all-NBA 3rd teams.

I'm not saying Nash=any of those players. I'm saying Nash spent less of his career in his optimal role, and being used in a role that isn't optimal will impact what kind of player you are. Lebron was literally the chosen one and had the offense built around his skills from day 1. Nash was drafted from Santa Clara to a Phoenix team that had multiple established point guards in front of him, and then when he finally got his chance in Dallas, he had injury problems for a year or so. Everyone's career is different. I'm not saying Nash doesn't have a weird career. He's the only guy ever to have his prime post-30s.

I do think that Nash was functionally better in Phoenix and it's not all context. He was stronger and healthier and finally embraced a little more scoring aggression full-time.

He may not have spammed them but he sure as hell got close.

No he really didn't.

And Nellie had success with Tim Hardaway, he had succes with Baron Davis in GS and all these players put up 20 and 7 kind of numbers. People act like Nelly wasn't arguable the second best option for a player like Nash to have that all time production, yet he didn't until SSOL. If you're a great player, regardless of if your being used optimally, as with Melo in NY, with MJ in Chicago, Kobe in his early years in LA, Harden in Houston pre-D'antoni..you're still going to show out as an all-NBA first team level player/MVP candidate.

Baron Davis was just as good or better in New Orleans. With him it was just health. He didn't pop off under Nellie because of Nellie-ball. Just look at the games played. Healthy Baron good but rare.

I strongly feel that while Nellie was an offensive genius, he always was bit of a silly goose. He produced some of the best offenses ever and innovated like nobody's business, but he wasn't the type of coach to get super cut throat and spam action. Nash got to do a ton under Nellie, but he was also asked to space for plenty of Dirk and Findogg action, let Nick Van Exel cook, and even was asked to stand around and let Antoine Walker run some point forward sets. Nellie liked to **** around more than he liked to find out. I love Nellie and I'm not hating. I just think he had clear strengths and weaknesses with how he ran his offenses. He was pretty good for Nash, but I don't think he took enough advantage of Nash's ability to paralyze the defense and make decisions. D'Antoni didn't do anything complicated that Nellie couldn't have chosen to do.

D'Antoni created 2 great offenses around 2 great players. Nash and Harden. He liked to run high pick & roll, which definitely boosted the stats of some meh point guards, but it didn't produce great offenses or lead to wins. If Nash was so mid, then it should have been pretty easy for D'Antoni to just keeping going to teams with low level all-star point guards and go to the conference finals ever.

[cupcakesnake]

So I never said Nash was inhibited by Nellie. He just wasn't optimized in Dallas, and wasn't as featured as he could be because Nellie preferred as many cooks in the kitchen as possible. Dirk was the main option in Dallas always, as he probably should have been. But it wasn't a tight little offense around the skills of Dirk, Finley, and Nash. Nellie loved to add extra actions and use all the tools at his disposal. From 2002-2004, Dallas made big room in its offense for guys like: Juwan Howard, Van Exel, old Tim Hardaway, Raef LaFrentz, Antoine Walker, and Antawn Jamison. Nellie even tried brief experiments running offense for guys like Wang Zhizhi and Antoine Rigeaudeau lol. I do think it was sloppy at times, and the best Mavs team was 2003, when Nellie played more defensive hustle guys in lineups next to his offensive players, rather than live his dream of playing 5 point forwards lol.

Nellie-ball in Dallas produced some serious offensive fireworks and Nash got to show the value of his rare shooting/playmaking synergy. But if your very best skill is creating plays off the dribble, you're not going to be your best individual self playing on a team with a bunch of other guys needing the ball in their hands. I think you can attack Nash's "portability" because of this, and I do think he's an MVP with the ball in his hands, and more of an all-NBA 3rd team guy when he's blending in with other ball dominant players.

I actually do think being "optimized" is the difference between being an all-NBA 3rd team guy and being in the MVP discussion. There's not an exact analogous situation for Nash's weird career, and I'm noticing that whenever I give you an example to show a personality, you prefer to flip it to point out the differences rather than address the point I'm trying to make with it (explaining to me that Steve Nash is not Michael Jordan!). Steph and Durant stopped winning MVPs when they played together (despite fitting together in a way that was still quite optimal due to their off-ball stuff).

Part of the weirdness of Steve Nash's late-career bloom is simply that he wasn't a no brainer star coming into the league. He was a lottery pick so he didn't come out of nowhere. Maybe he got Stockton comps at the time (I was super young and only sort of following the league when Nash was in college). It did take innovative coaches to imagine Steve Nash as the epicentre of an offense. Anyone can imagine it for a Lebron or a Dirk.

The Nash dislikers have this consistent argument that any good point guard could have done what Nash did in Phoenix. But I don't get it. A) so why didn't anyone do it if it was so simple? and B) It really ignores the rarerity of someone being a historically elite shooter and a historically elite passer at the same time. Really only Bird and now Jokic have something like that kind of synergy. Steve Nash was rare and special, and that's why he was able to have the success he did, rather than it being the sole product of lucky circumstance.

I think we've both spoke our pieces on this and probably wont convince each other. I'm sure we've both had this argument with other people 100 times. By all means respond, and I'm not trying to have a final word on this, but if neither of us feel compelled or open to the opposite POV we're probably stuck here, haha.

[tsherkin]

Sounds like your saying they failed in 09 because they went away from SSOL. You’re making my point
Defense is irrelevant nonsense boy bye

You understand that your entire argument is that when they took the ball out of Nash's hands, they did worse, right?

This is like if the Bulls had tried to run the offense through Bill Cartwright instead of Jordan, reducing MJ's possessions in order to facilitate a more traditionally-styled offense.

If Shaq was 30, that might have made sense. He wasn't, however, and was a couple of years from retirement. That strategy didn't pay dividends, because it meant that the team was going away from everything which made them successful. If you don't leverage your star's strengths, then you're being stupid, and actively sabotaging the team... which is what Phoenix was doing under Porter.

[jc23]

Outside of that Lakers super team i dont remember his playoff losses being seen as huge disappointments. When op puts it the way he did it does look bad.

[Biff]

Great offensive pgs are best with the ball in their hands. What a revelation. Ive tried to explain this to you multiple times about usage when he was on the mavs.(you said youd reply to the user that brought up nash not having the ball in dallas, which you haven't done yet. Im interested to see the response)

Yea and I highlighted that his USG on the Mav’s was HIGHER then when he was on the Suns

Nash’s USG over his last four years in Dallas was 22.3. His USG from 30 to 35 in PHX was 22.2

His back to back MVP years his USG was 22

His USG for his entire time in PHX was 21.8

His USG as a starter in Dallas was 22.1 (I.e more than his time in PHX)

His greatest USG pct was his second to last year in Dallas 24.4. The next year, when you say Nelson took the ball out of his hands in favor of Walker, that team scored more PPG and had a higher Offensive rating.

This means your assertion that his USG in Dallas was less than it was in PHX is objectively false. We’ve gone over this already. This isn’t a valid argument.

Is your starting pg on the knicks a system pg? Thats my main question. Brunson went from above average starter at best on the mavs playing without the ball a lot, to playing well in the playoffs without luka because he had the ball more, to struggling again when luka played... to being a top 5 mvp candidate with the ball consistently in his hands. Id argue thats a bigger and more improbable jump than all NBA 3rd team uber skilled pg to mvp. Just by having the offense revolved around him on the knicks.

System player or nah?

Yea; no. First off, Brunson played SG along side Luka. That automatically going to take the ball out of his hands. Secondly, unlike Nash…Brunson’s USG in Dallas compared to New York is significantly greater while Nash’s is marginal:

Jalen Brunson’s USG in the playoffs in his last year with Dallas was 27.8. His USG in the RS was 21.9. This explains the increase in production.

His USG his first two years with the Knicks is a WHOOPING 29.9. This is a HUGE lift in possessions he was involved in. He has had a significant jump in production and impact but that’s accompanied by a huge jump in USG. This is objectively not the case for Nash so what’s your explanation for that?


My main question to you…how old are you Mr. Garbage Man?

You're so damn toxic otherwise I'd respond to your idiocy. Not gonna waste my time typing out retorts since you will just ignore and double down. How about you go respond to the Thinking Basketball video piece on him and see how well that goes. lol

[DimesandKnicks]

Great offensive pgs are best with the ball in their hands. What a revelation. Ive tried to explain this to you multiple times about usage when he was on the mavs.(you said youd reply to the user that brought up nash not having the ball in dallas, which you haven't done yet. Im interested to see the response)

Yea and I highlighted that his USG on the Mav’s was HIGHER then when he was on the Suns

Nash’s USG over his last four years in Dallas was 22.3. His USG from 30 to 35 in PHX was 22.2

His back to back MVP years his USG was 22

His USG for his entire time in PHX was 21.8

His USG as a starter in Dallas was 22.1 (I.e more than his time in PHX)

His greatest USG pct was his second to last year in Dallas 24.4. The next year, when you say Nelson took the ball out of his hands in favor of Walker, that team scored more PPG and had a higher Offensive rating.

This means your assertion that his USG in Dallas was less than it was in PHX is objectively false. We’ve gone over this already. This isn’t a valid argument.

Is your starting pg on the knicks a system pg? Thats my main question. Brunson went from above average starter at best on the mavs playing without the ball a lot, to playing well in the playoffs without luka because he had the ball more, to struggling again when luka played... to being a top 5 mvp candidate with the ball consistently in his hands. Id argue thats a bigger and more improbable jump than all NBA 3rd team uber skilled pg to mvp. Just by having the offense revolved around him on the knicks.

System player or nah?

Yea; no. First off, Brunson played SG along side Luka. That automatically going to take the ball out of his hands. Secondly, unlike Nash…Brunson’s USG in Dallas compared to New York is significantly greater while Nash’s is marginal:

Jalen Brunson’s USG in the playoffs in his last year with Dallas was 27.8. His USG in the RS was 21.9. This explains the increase in production.

His USG his first two years with the Knicks is a WHOOPING 29.9. This is a HUGE lift in possessions he was involved in. He has had a significant jump in production and impact but that’s accompanied by a huge jump in USG. This is objectively not the case for Nash so what’s your explanation for that?


My main question to you…how old are you Mr. Garbage Man?

You're so damn toxic otherwise I'd respond to your idiocy. Not gonna waste my time typing out retorts since you will just ignore and double down. How about you go respond to the Thinking Basketball video piece on him and see how well that goes. lol

Here you are responding. Some of you guys are really fragile. It’s a basketball discussion void of any ad hominems but here you are deploying them at me. Shame on you. Tighten up Biff

[canada_dry]

Yea and I highlighted that his USG on the Mav’s was HIGHER then when he was on the Suns

Nash’s USG over his last four years in Dallas was 22.3. His USG from 30 to 35 in PHX was 22.2

His back to back MVP years his USG was 22

His USG for his entire time in PHX was 21.8

His USG as a starter in Dallas was 22.1 (I.e more than his time in PHX)

His greatest USG pct was his second to last year in Dallas 24.4. The next year, when you say Nelson took the ball out of his hands in favor of Walker, that team scored more PPG and had a higher Offensive rating.

This means your assertion that his USG in Dallas was less than it was in PHX is objectively false. We’ve gone over this already. This isn’t a valid argument.




Yea; no. First off, Brunson played SG along side Luka. That automatically going to take the ball out of his hands. Secondly, unlike Nash…Brunson’s USG in Dallas compared to New York is significantly greater while Nash’s is marginal:

Jalen Brunson’s USG in the playoffs in his last year with Dallas was 27.8. His USG in the RS was 21.9. This explains the increase in production.

His USG his first two years with the Knicks is a WHOOPING 29.9. This is a HUGE lift in possessions he was involved in. He has had a significant jump in production and impact but that’s accompanied by a huge jump in USG. This is objectively not the case for Nash so what’s your explanation for that?


My main question to you…how old are you Mr. Garbage Man?

You're so damn toxic otherwise I'd respond to your idiocy. Not gonna waste my time typing out retorts since you will just ignore and double down. How about you go respond to the Thinking Basketball video piece on him and see how well that goes. lol

Here you are responding. Some of you guys are really fragile. It’s a basketball discussion void of any ad hominems but here you are deploying them at me. Shame on you. Tighten up Biff

Everyone really us trying to tell you the same thing, man lol. More ball=more effectiveness for an all time great pg.

Now, you don't think hes all time at shooting and passing, you just think he was very good/great. Not all time great. Thats something that wont be agreed upon.

And yes you also do have the usage % for your argument, but again, everyone here that watched and understand nuance also understand the way he was being used was very different and he simply didn't have the ball in his hands as much as on the suns To do the things he was best at. Those things are Running an offense. Playmaking, and Decision making. Yes his the usage % was comparable or even higher because he actually SHOT more on Dallas (03 specifically which if im not mistaken was his career high usg %). Just like amare having a higher usg on the suns than nash despite nash obviously having the ball more in his hands. You kinda answered your own question when you said yeah, amare shot more. Same thing on dallas and nashs usg%.

When a guy is an elite floor general hes best with the ball in his hands. The fact that he was a top tier pg in dallas, especially in 03, despite that not being the case, as much as on the suns at least, is just a testament to his unique blend of shooting and playmaking that you just dont see throughout history even, as the user above mentioned. 04 was its own mess as we've gone back and forth on. This like the 3rd person other than myself that has brought up how awful that antoine Walker point forward experiment was and i recall you trying to tell me he was more than solid for dallas and continued to play great on the championship heat.

But yea at this point its a brick wall between us, as you think the usage stats are the be all end all and it doesn't matter how many people give you context, your narrative is what it is.

You think hes not atg at passing etc and think hes overrated and a lot of pgs could have done what he did in that system, we just wont ever agree on that either. His skills were just too high and just as importantly his decision making too elite and quick in a SEVEN SECONDS or less system , with his elite shooting. You wont find another pg as tailor made for it. Marbury far from that.

So yes. As per my original response, nash was Su-pe-ri-or at those skills compared to a Marbury.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app