Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than CP3

Moderators: penbeast0, trex_8063, PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier

Brenice
Banned User
Posts: 4,071
And1: 464
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
Location: DC

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#61 » by Brenice » Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:46 pm

lorak wrote:I know most of you Nash's haters...


Like Larry Bird, 99% of NBA followers know Nash is great. But when people point out his flaws, and he does have flaws, and is of the mindset that another player that is also great, but better all around than Nash because basketball is played on both ends of the court, does not make them a hater.

With the way Nash is trumpeted as if he was a god, it gives perspective to what Isaiah Thomas said about Bird...If Nash was...he'd just be...

Nobody is saying Nash is not great. Haters, I think not.
landooo
Banned User
Posts: 63
And1: 32
Joined: Mar 27, 2014

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#62 » by landooo » Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:13 pm

It's funny how everyone ignores the fact that CP3 **** all over/obliterates Nash in the advanced box-score stuff (PER/WS/Ws48/WP/etc), but have no problem immediately bringing them up for other comparisons.

As if Nash is the only star with impact outside the boxscore.
colts18
Head Coach
Posts: 7,428
And1: 3,237
Joined: Jun 29, 2009

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#63 » by colts18 » Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:59 am

landooo wrote:It's funny how everyone ignores the fact that CP3 **** all over/obliterates Nash in the advanced box-score stuff (PER/WS/Ws48/WP/etc), but have no problem immediately bringing them up for other comparisons.

CP3 also has an advantage in those box score stats over Magic Johnson. Do you think CP3 is better than Magic Johnson?
G35
RealGM
Posts: 22,210
And1: 7,704
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
     

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#64 » by G35 » Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:23 am

colts18 wrote:
landooo wrote:It's funny how everyone ignores the fact that CP3 **** all over/obliterates Nash in the advanced box-score stuff (PER/WS/Ws48/WP/etc), but have no problem immediately bringing them up for other comparisons.

CP3 also has an advantage in those box score stats over Magic Johnson. Do you think CP3 is better than Magic Johnson?



Which can be applied to a whole lot of other comparisons also.

So a standing question is if someone has a clear box score advantage does that make that player decisively better? What is the determining factor? Because Magic also clearly played with much better talent than any other PG really.....
I'm so tired of the typical......
lorak
Head Coach
Posts: 6,317
And1: 2,231
Joined: Nov 23, 2009

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#65 » by lorak » Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:53 am

Brenice wrote:
Like Larry Bird, 99% of NBA followers know Nash is great. But when people point out his flaws, and he does have flaws, and is of the mindset that another player that is also great, but better all around than Nash because basketball is played on both ends of the court,


That's how most of you Nash's critics miss - Nash's flaws on the other end of the court are overrated and his overall impact on the game still was GREAT despite his defensive limitations.
User avatar
rrravenred
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,065
And1: 546
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Location: Pulling at the loose threads of arguments since 2006

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#66 » by rrravenred » Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:21 pm

Don't make me come over there... play nice, children. Critique the arguments, not the posters, and do it kindly.
ElGee wrote:You, my friend, have shoved those words into my mouth, which is OK because I'm hungry.


Got fallacy?
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 85,511
And1: 88,346
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#67 » by Texas Chuck » Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:22 pm

no one misses Nash's impact as great.

I have no idea why you keep saying that.

As one of the "haters" itt my only questions have been about why his "lovers" push his team otrg and the idea that the Suns fall apart when he leaves as why he is the best, but completely ignore the vast difference between his backups and Paul's (using Dragic as the representation of Nash's backup was funny tho) and ignore the whole Dallas thing which rips a pretty giant hole in the idea that Nash is 100% responsible for everything great that happens offensively on his teams.

You say we miss his impact, we say Nash is awesome. I say let's look at Dallas with Nash and post-Nash and at least acknowledge that the team's offense absolutely did not collapse when he left, and despite a 2-time MVP walking for zip in return the Mavs as a team got better. That didnt happen to the Hornets and they got talent in return. What we all thought would happen did in fact happen. Shouldnt the GOAT offensive PG leaving hurt a franchise? You don't have to tell me how great Dirk is, but Nash to JET/Devin is a huge drop-off. Or why bring up Marion PS failures, but ignore what happened to Nash in Dallas in his last 3 playoff runs?

I think it deserves actual examination, but I'm essentially the only person on this board who doesnt think Steve's career started in 05. I know people were watching the Mavs in the early 00s. Decent young team that was fun to watch. So why won't Nash guys talk about it? Im afraid its because it doesnt make their guy look quite as good.

I watched Nash in Dallas and loved him and was so angry that of all people for Cuban to decide to be financially responsible on he chose Nash. I was so happy for Steve that he went to the Suns and stuck to Cuban including absolutely killing Dallas in the playoffs. Despite my "criticisms" itt I too think Nash is an all-time great offensive PG. I just wish we had a real conversation that wasnt supporters on one side, twisting things their way, and "haters" on the other doing the opposite.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,142
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#68 » by Quotatious » Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:50 pm

Texas Chuck wrote: So why won't Nash guys talk about it? Im afraid its because it doesnt make their guy look quite as good.

You know Chuck, I'm not particularly a Nash guy - I like him, but he's never been among my favorite players - and I still think that his Dallas years actually add to his resume. He was already in contention for the best point guard in the league in Dallas, top 3 for sure. He had four very good seasons between 2001 and 2004. To me it just seems that you have to adapt your system to your point guard's capabilities to get 100% of his potential. I think you have to give him freedom to do his thing. It's not about just Nash - when you look at the list of consensus top 10 point guards, almost all of them were the second coaches of their teams - they could do whatever they wanted - in no particular order - Magic, Oscar, West, Stockton, Nash, Kidd, Payton, CP3, Isiah and Frazier - these are the ten guys who are most often considered top 10 PGs ever. Stockton was a system player in a similar way to Nash - he had to run a very specific type of offense, heavily reliant on pick & rolls, just like Nash, but at the same time, he sure dominated the hell out of the ball, like every great PG did. Frazier played in a very structured, team-oriented offense in New York, but he was still clearly the primary ballhandler of his teams.

To sum up, I think the fact that Dallas played a really team-oriented offense in Nellie's era, didn't allow Nash to utilize all of his potential, because he needed the ball in his hands as much as he wanted, to make things happen like he used to in Phoenix, while in Dallas, you had ISO plays for Dirk, even for Finley, and as a result, Nash was often just the third option. You even had guys like Van Exel and Toine in the last two seasons - horrible chuckers who needed quite a few more touches than you would like to give your other players if you have Nash on your team. Nash really had to play more off-ball, as a spot up shooter in some situations, just like he would in LA with Kobe if they were both healthy, especially with Pau, and when Dwight was still there.

It's also possible that Nash actually improved his game at 30 - it's a very rare, but still possible occurence - John Havlicek apparently did the same thing after Russell retired, for that matter. Nash was already a late bloomer, who just started giving signs of really big potential when he was 25 years old or so, so it seems entirely plausible.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 85,511
And1: 88,346
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#69 » by Texas Chuck » Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:56 pm

Agree Dallas NAsh was a positive (after the first 2 years).
Agree Nash absolutely improved his game at 30--he stopped partied so much and got himself into far better shape.

Nash had the ball a ton in Dallas. Yes he didnt have it to the degree he had it in Phoenix, but let's not act like Nellie doesnt know what to do with talented offensive guys.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,142
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#70 » by Quotatious » Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:05 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:Nash had the ball a ton in Dallas. Yes he didnt have it to the degree he had it in Phoenix, but let's not act like Nellie doesnt know what to do with talented offensive guys.

Sure, but that's exactly the point of this discussion - he didn't have it to the degree he had it in Phoenix - and he had to, to be fully effective.

Strangely, I think that Nellie maximized Baron's potential clearly more than Nash's in GSW, by letting him do basically whatever he wanted with the ball - looking at 2007, I'm sure you would agree that it worked pretty well for them. :) It was possible because the Warriors didn't have any post player even close to Dirk, so obviously Nelson decided they needed to be very perimeter oriented, with Baron, J-Rich and Monta at guard spots.
I think it was certainly good for Nash that Amare wasn't a superstar yet when he (Nash) joined the Suns in '04. Otherwise, I could see more ISO action for Stoudemire, and a bit less freedom for Nash.
lorak
Head Coach
Posts: 6,317
And1: 2,231
Joined: Nov 23, 2009

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#71 » by lorak » Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:19 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
As one of the "haters" itt my only questions have been about why his "lovers" push his team otrg and the idea that the Suns fall apart when he leaves as why he is the best, but completely ignore the vast difference between his backups and Paul's (using Dragic as the representation of Nash's backup was funny tho) and ignore the whole Dallas thing which rips a pretty giant hole in the idea that Nash is 100% responsible for everything great that happens offensively on his teams.


I've talked about it, but of course you've ignored my points and now you repeat things like that:

I say let's look at Dallas with Nash and post-Nash and at least acknowledge that the team's offense absolutely did not collapse when he left


when it already was said that Mavs offense in 2004 (+9.2 ortg) was GOAT like (actually it is THE best offense of all time) and in 2005 much, much worse (+4.2), however still very good, but even if we include all other changes on Mavs roster, then there's no doubt Nash had enormous impact already in 2004 despite the fact that he wasn't used 100% the way he should be.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 85,511
And1: 88,346
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#72 » by Texas Chuck » Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:50 pm

Okay dude. Your one stat settles it. I'll admit Im surprised anyone really thinksthe 2004 Mavs were really the best offense of all time tho. They were very good, but their lack of a post game was seen at the time as a major flaw, and proved to be a big part of their undoing in the PS when other than Dirk none of the perimeter guys shots were falling. Including Nash who was badly outplayed by little Mike Bibby. Oh but I guess I cant bring up that fact because......well I dont know why, but I cant.

We see great perimeter based offenses in the regular season but they often fail in the PS. No, that Mavs offense isnt close to the best of all time despite what that one stat is telling you.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Brenice
Banned User
Posts: 4,071
And1: 464
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
Location: DC

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#73 » by Brenice » Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:55 pm

The problem is the great offense inevitably didn't score enough points because they were outscored by teams who were never considered great offensively. 16 seasons and the only thing to show for it are 2 MVP's , stats on offense, and division wins.

I see the style. Where is the substance? Sometimes your individual role has to shrink for the sake of the team. The PG position is unique. Magic was the only PG who could be alpha with other GOATs on the team. Magic had a great personality. Magic was allowed to be Magic because he won. When Nash plays with other GOATs, Nash can't be MVP Nash because in the end, MVP Nash don't win. Nash in a reduced role don't win either because of his flaws.
Notanoob
Analyst
Posts: 3,423
And1: 1,179
Joined: Jun 07, 2013

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#74 » by Notanoob » Sun Apr 20, 2014 4:01 pm

I think that it's unfair to suggest that Nash's style wasn't conducive to winning a title. If Amar'e doesn't leave the bench in the 2007 playoffs due to Horry's hip check, there is a decent chance that they win the next game and finally beat the Spurs. Then I don't see them having much trouble dispatching the Cavs given how easily the Spurs demolished them. There you go, Nash wins a title in 2007. Sure, you can say that he isn't good as a #2 guy because that cramps his style on offense and he doesn't contribute defensively, but I'm sure that a Nash led team can win a title.
User avatar
NO-KG-AI
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 42,927
And1: 17,885
Joined: Jul 19, 2005
Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#75 » by NO-KG-AI » Sun Apr 20, 2014 4:32 pm

colts18 wrote:
landooo wrote:It's funny how everyone ignores the fact that CP3 **** all over/obliterates Nash in the advanced box-score stuff (PER/WS/Ws48/WP/etc), but have no problem immediately bringing them up for other comparisons.

CP3 also has an advantage in those box score stats over Magic Johnson. Do you think CP3 is better than Magic Johnson?


Is the gap as significant to you? What about era differences?
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,142
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#76 » by Quotatious » Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:09 pm

Notanoob wrote:I think that it's unfair to suggest that Nash's style wasn't conducive to winning a title. If Amar'e doesn't leave the bench in the 2007 playoffs due to Horry's hip check, there is a decent chance that they win the next game and finally beat the Spurs. Then I don't see them having much trouble dispatching the Cavs given how easily the Spurs demolished them. There you go, Nash wins a title in 2007. Sure, you can say that he isn't good as a #2 guy because that cramps his style on offense and he doesn't contribute defensively, but I'm sure that a Nash led team can win a title.

Totally agree. I think they might've had a great chance to win it all in 2006, too, if Amare was healthy and able to play in the playoffs. They actually lost in 6 to the Mavs in the WCF without him, so if you add a superstar like Stoudemire, I think they beat Dallas and then in the finals, anything could happen against Miami. Maybe Wade wouldn't have had such an insane series against Phoenix? We'll never know. I think it's safe to say that Shaq wouldn't have struggled again like he actually did against Dallas, but even if he played at his usual level, and Wade played at his usual level, instead of averaging 35 PPG and 16 FTA, I think Phoenix would've had a good chance against them in the finals.

Sure, Boris Diaw played out of his mind in the '06 Dallas series, but with him off the bench and Amare in the starting lineup, Suns look way more dangerous. Guarding Shaq would be a problem, but at least they had a premier man defender in the league at the time like Raja Bell, to put on Wade.

Seems like it was really a bad luck for the Suns, in both '06 and '07, in both cases not having Amare was the problem...
Brenice
Banned User
Posts: 4,071
And1: 464
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
Location: DC

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#77 » by Brenice » Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:20 pm

Notanoob wrote:I think that it's unfair to suggest that Nash's style wasn't conducive to winning a title. If Amar'e doesn't leave the bench in the 2007 playoffs due to Horry's hip check, there is a decent chance that they win the next game and finally beat the Spurs. Then I don't see them having much trouble dispatching the Cavs given how easily the Spurs demolished them. There you go, Nash wins a title in 2007. Sure, you can say that he isn't good as a #2 guy because that cramps his style on offense and he doesn't contribute defensively, but I'm sure that a Nash led team can win a title.


Everybody has a chance if the stars align perfectly. But we don't know what would have happened in game 7 if Amare didn't leave the bench in that game. I do know WHAT happened in 15 other seasons.
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,041
And1: 1,202
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#78 » by ElGee » Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:25 am

Texas Chuck wrote:Okay dude. Your one stat settles it. I'll admit Im surprised anyone really thinksthe 2004 Mavs were really the best offense of all time tho. They were very good, but their lack of a post game was seen at the time as a major flaw, and proved to be a big part of their undoing in the PS when other than Dirk none of the perimeter guys shots were falling. Including Nash who was badly outplayed by little Mike Bibby. Oh but I guess I cant bring up that fact because......well I dont know why, but I cant.

We see great perimeter based offenses in the regular season but they often fail in the PS. No, that Mavs offense isnt close to the best of all time despite what that one stat is telling you.


I think everyone should consider every year of a player's career, so Dallas Nash is quite relevant. What's more, Dallas Nash was quite good. I think he clearly improved in 2005 for 3 reasons:

(1) Improved dedication/conditioning (well documented, clearly visible in physical appearance and quickness)
(2) Offensive Primacy (Went from an offense where he ran pick and pop or was off ball as a shooter a lot to a PnR roll offense)
(3) Rule changes -- these helped the spacing and freedom of movement off ball more than anything, which has helped make PnR basketball extra devastating in the last decade.

Nash was an all-nba level player in Dallas. Or at least on the fringe. He clearly had some serious offensive performance and was an absolutely godly shooter. And he clearly was a better to much better player in Phoenix, despite being 30.

I also think one thing that's lacking in player analysis is team analysis -- basketball isn't played in a vacuum. The Suns and Mavs often sacrificed defense for offense to try and gain an overall net advantage -- this has to be taken into account when evaluating offensive impact only. It's tempting to say "we know a PG can't hurt the defense too much, their defensive responsibility is probably in the ballpark of 10-15% of possessions, whereas elite PG's can have impact on 60% of offensive possessions...ergo I looked up ORtg and the PG must be GOAT level!"

This ignores the team strategy. The 2004 Mavs were a massive disappointment, despite their "GOAT" offense, because they played Dirk Nowitzki at center (!) in a (desperate?) move to create an advantage through offense at the expense of defense. And it worked to a degree -- of their top 20-minute lineups, they were +8.7/100 when Dirk played center (114.8 ORtg, or 11.9 points better than the league!). But they were +12.6 in 2003, when the Mavs were a title-level team. (Ask mystic all about this.) The 2004 Spurs +11.2 with Duncan on. The 05 Suns +12.6 with Nash. LBJ +13.3 last year. And so on -- +8.7/100 with a high-peak superstar usually isn't cutting the mustard, and it didn't in 04 in Dallas, where a lot went wrong. And Nash regressed a bit, making his performance in 2005 in Phoenix look all the more contrasting.
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
lorak
Head Coach
Posts: 6,317
And1: 2,231
Joined: Nov 23, 2009

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#79 » by lorak » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:09 am

ElGee wrote:This ignores the team strategy.


But we can't ignore WHY team strategy was what it was. Mavs in 2003 had better defensive personnel (for example Griffin, Bell, much more minutes for Bradley), while in 2004 they added very bad defenders in Jamison and Walker and both of them played big minutes. So the question is: could they have been better in 2004 with roster they had?

BTW, Russell's teams weren't GOAT defensively because they were bad on offense? Or Thibs Bulls aren't great defensively because they are bad on offense?
G35
RealGM
Posts: 22,210
And1: 7,704
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
     

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#80 » by G35 » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:09 am

ElGee wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:Okay dude. Your one stat settles it. I'll admit Im surprised anyone really thinksthe 2004 Mavs were really the best offense of all time tho. They were very good, but their lack of a post game was seen at the time as a major flaw, and proved to be a big part of their undoing in the PS when other than Dirk none of the perimeter guys shots were falling. Including Nash who was badly outplayed by little Mike Bibby. Oh but I guess I cant bring up that fact because......well I dont know why, but I cant.

We see great perimeter based offenses in the regular season but they often fail in the PS. No, that Mavs offense isnt close to the best of all time despite what that one stat is telling you.


I think everyone should consider every year of a player's career, so Dallas Nash is quite relevant. What's more, Dallas Nash was quite good. I think he clearly improved in 2005 for 3 reasons:

(1) Improved dedication/conditioning (well documented, clearly visible in physical appearance and quickness)
(2) Offensive Primacy (Went from an offense where he ran pick and pop or was off ball as a shooter a lot to a PnR roll offense)
(3) Rule changes -- these helped the spacing and freedom of movement off ball more than anything, which has helped make PnR basketball extra devastating in the last decade.

Nash was an all-nba level player in Dallas. Or at least on the fringe. He clearly had some serious offensive performance and was an absolutely godly shooter. And he clearly was a better to much better player in Phoenix, despite being 30.

I also think one thing that's lacking in player analysis is team analysis -- basketball isn't played in a vacuum. The Suns and Mavs often sacrificed defense for offense to try and gain an overall net advantage -- this has to be taken into account when evaluating offensive impact only. It's tempting to say "we know a PG can't hurt the defense too much, their defensive responsibility is probably in the ballpark of 10-15% of possessions, whereas elite PG's can have impact on 60% of offensive possessions...ergo I looked up ORtg and the PG must be GOAT level!"

This ignores the team strategy. The 2004 Mavs were a massive disappointment, despite their "GOAT" offense, because they played Dirk Nowitzki at center (!) in a (desperate?) move to create an advantage through offense at the expense of defense. And it worked to a degree -- of their top 20-minute lineups, they were +8.7/100 when Dirk played center (114.8 ORtg, or 11.9 points better than the league!). But they were +12.6 in 2003, when the Mavs were a title-level team. (Ask mystic all about this.) The 2004 Spurs +11.2 with Duncan on. The 05 Suns +12.6 with Nash. LBJ +13.3 last year. And so on -- +8.7/100 with a high-peak superstar usually isn't cutting the mustard, and it didn't in 04 in Dallas, where a lot went wrong. And Nash regressed a bit, making his performance in 2005 in Phoenix look all the more contrasting.



I like this analysis, especially the highlighted portions. If a player goes to a team that has a greater focus on defense that is going to affect a players offense. That doesn't make a player any less of an offensive threat, that's going along with the game plan. Dallas was an offensive juggernaut and Phoenix was even more so and had the personnel to make it happen....
I'm so tired of the typical......

Return to Player Comparisons