Post#15 » by trex_8063 » Tue Oct 6, 2015 2:51 am
Paul vs. Nash (my semi-rambling 2c)
fwiw, I’m going with ‘07 as Nash’s peak (I don’t think that one really warrants explanation). I might go somewhat against the grain and go with ‘15 as Chris Paul’s peak, though.
It’s true that Paul doesn’t have the same lift, explosiveness, or motor that he had in ‘08 or ‘09, and as consequence you can see he gets to the rim or the line much less frequently. But I feel he’s made up for that (offensively) with much improved shooting, especially from the mid-range (although he’s also significantly better from 3pt range and the FT-line, too---up to basically 40 and 90 from those places). Meanwhile defensively he’s significantly better in recent years than he was in ‘08 (or ‘09). Further, there appears to be bit of disconnect between his box/advanced numbers and all impact indicators in ‘08 or ‘09; this is not the case in recent years, though. So in whatever way----or maybe it’s purely situational, idk----he appears to have found a certain synergy with his team that he perhaps didn’t have in New Orleans. So anyway, that’s why I’m going with ‘15 as his peak.
Scoring
In the rs: Nash’s 26.4 pts/100 @ +11.3% rTS trumps Paul’s 27.7 pts/100 @ +6.2% rTS, rather easily. But Paul scaled up in both volume and efficiency in the playoffs (whereas Nash did not). Though fwiw, I don’t think it’s necessarily for lack of ability to do so. We have seen Nash scale up on an as needed basis (the Mavs series in ‘05); I know that was in a separate year, but I feel Nash was more or less the same player in ‘05-’07 (minute differences), so I still feel that’s a valid representation of what he COULD do. He would simply take what the defense gave.
I do think Paul has a more consistent history of scaling up in volume and/or efficiency in the playoffs, though, for what that’s worth.
My eye test tells me peak Nash was more capable of scoring moderate-high volume at elite (or hyper-elite) efficiency, though I don’t know precisely what it would look like if his playmaking were somewhat mitigated by a crappy offensive supporting cast, wherein he’d be forced (presumably) to take on more scoring volume.
But he just had a knack for wrapping defenses around his finger, and getting them to do what he wanted them to. Peak Nash was better at getting to the rim than ‘15 Paul, and shot better from most locations (was -1.9% in the 10-16 ft range, and actually -0.1% from the FT-line that year); but was better at the rim, better from 3-10 ft, and then quite a lot better from 16-23 ft and 3pt range.
Overall it seems very close to a wash, though the rs statline (sample size) and my eye-test persuade me to give Nash the tiniest edge as a scorer.
Passing/Play-making/Court General
This too is extremely close. Few stats to note….
Nash (rs): 16.5 ast/100 with 5.4 tov/100.
Paul (rs): 14.9 ast/100 with 3.4 tov/100.
Above I’d noted how Paul’s scoring scaled up in the post season; however, the opposite happened to his assist numbers. Meanwhile, though we didn’t see Nash’s scoring scale up at all in the playoffs, we DID see his assists go up (again: he takes what the defense gives).
Nash (playoffs): 18.0 ast/100 with 5.9 tov/100.
Paul (playoffs): 11.5 ast/100 with 2.8 tov/100.
Eye-test tells me Nash is better. Maybe it’s because he’s more flashy, idk; but there’s no doubt he saw angles most PG’s can’t see (or at least don’t dare try). He could work the pnr/pnp like no one else (save maybe Stockton). And his ability to keep his dribble alive in traffic or along the baseline, just waiting for the D to make the slightest error, and then he’d make them pay. It was remarkable.
I do think there’s some truth to what (Spaceman??) had said about his being more turnover-prone was a byproduct of his more free-flowing style which ultimately led to more very high% attempts (for someone).
otoh, let’s not overlook that even a possession that ends in a terrible low% 2pt shot attempt (let’s say...one that’s only falling one time out of three) is still a significantly better possession than one that ends in a turnover. So the 2-3 fewer turnovers that Paul will commit per 100 have some relevance.
Paul does seem like a bit more of a ball-stopper at times, fwiw. And while I don’t want to suggest that fast pace for the sake of pace is always good, I will say I think you’re more likely to tire the opposing defense down (as a unit) with a faster pace (which Nash seems to thrive the most in).
Some team-oriented indicators of offensive generalship….
Certainly it seems that Nash’s brand of offensive leadership has the better track-record of success.
In ‘05 he anchors an historic great team offense (+8.4 rORTG). Yeah, great offensive supporting cast: Amar’e, Marion, Joe Johnson, as well as some guys like Quentin Richardson and Barbosa to help spread the floor. But is that so much better offensively than Griffin, Redick, Crawford, with Barnes to help spread the floor and DeAndre to toss oops to and clean up on the offensive glass for you?
In ‘06, Stoudemire misses the entire season, Joe Johnson is gone, replaced with Raja Bell (great spot-up shooter, big step down from Johnson offensively in all other ways), Richardson replaced with Boris Diaw. Kurt Thomas (defense, rebounding) now the primary center. Did get a couple more shooters in James Jones and Eddie House on board. Still, with losing Stoudemire and Johnson, Nash still helps anchor a +5.3 rORTG team.
‘07, Stoudemire comes back (with just a little rust), and we’re back to +7.4 rORTG, which is better than any offense Paul’s ever anchored.
Impact studies have always been very flattering, individually, to Nash’s offense.
Paul just had the all-time (for years we have the data) highest offensive on/off; but to be fair, that’s heavily influenced by the fact that the Clippers had little depth (perhaps especially at PG).
So anyway, I’m inclined to give Nash the marginal edge for playmaking and floor general duties.
Overall Offensively….
The margin isn’t much, but almost across the board I’ve been inclined to give the marginal edge to Nash. He is somewhat of a genius talent (in an all-time sense) offensively. So overall, I have to give him a small edge as the better offensive player.
But then there’s defense…..and I don’t know why this gets overlooked a lot when comparing PG’s. Yeah, they don’t have as much capacity to influence the game on that end (so let’s just ignore it?....)
Well, I’m not going to ignore it. Paul is the better defender, handily (in the year I’m going with as his peak), and I don’t think I need to qualify that statement. To me, that gives him the tiny edge on Nash overall.
This perhaps will even be reflected in RAPM studies (one of the big statistical factors upon which Nash’s vaunted reputation is built).
While Nash has many of the all-time highest non-scaled PI ORAPM numbers (like between 7.5 and 8.0) let’s not overlook that he’s then often like -1.5 DRAPM…...so his combined PI RAPM in those years was still only around +6.0 to 6.5.
I’m waiting for a reliable source to put out the full season RAPM splits for ‘15, but I suspect we’ll see Paul is something like +5.5 or so ORAPM, and then +1.5 DRAPM (for around +7.0 or so overall; which is what was seen in ‘14, fwiw).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
. fwiw, I'd also constructed formula founded on Moonbeam's Score+ rating (I called mine "Modified Score+").......'14 Durant is the 2nd-highest MS+ rating on record (just barely behind '88 Barkley, and just barely ahead of '83 Dantley).