Is Mavs Steve Nash a good comp for Darius Garland?

[cupcakesnake]

2000-2004 Steve Nash wasn’t the 2nd best PG in the NBA. Maybe top 5 but not the 2nd best. During that time frame I would put Chauncey Billups, and Tony Parker ahead of Nash (during those years). Some might even put Baron Davis, Stephon Marbury, Andre Miller, Richard Hamilton, Mike Bibby, and Steve Francis ahead of 00-04 Nash.

Chris Paul was drafted in ‘05 when Nash was already in Phoenix.

I think he was the 2nd best point guad in the NBA in 2002 and 2003. 2004 Mavs had too many cooks for Nash's playmaking/scoring to be as impactful, and before 2002 Nash was still ramping up. Even if you aren't personally high on Nash, the media was at the time. Nash made all-NBA 3rd team both years. Kidd finished ahead of him, and one year a 33-year-old Gary Payton did too.

Some of the players you're suggesting weren't on the timeline you're imagining:

- Billups didn't start making waves until 2004, but despite that finals MVP, he didn't become that perfect floor general until 2006. He was averaging 16 and 5 in his best seasons before 2006.

- Tony Parker didn't make his first all-star team until 2006. He's not in any conversation about best point guards from 2000-2004 (His rookie season was 2002).

- You've got to be kidding me with Starbury and Steve Francis. They were exciting and popular but there's no evidence they helped teams win basketball games.

- Baron Davis vs. Steve Nash is a fun debate. Davis had pretty bad scoring efficiency, but he legitimately provided big rim pressure and playmaking. He was healthy enough during this stretch of time too.

- Rip Hamilton is a shooting guard and made his first all-star team in 2006.

- Mike Bibby was solid and had a couple of impressive scoring runs in the playoffs... but what's really his case over Nash? 0 time all-star who was more solid than spectacular. Good shooter but not an amazingly efficient overall scorer. Big assist guy in Vancouver, but not really a brilliant playmaker overall. He was pretty good in 2004?

Feel like we’ve forgotten Jason Kidd existed.

If the subject of this back and forth was whether or not Nash was the #2 point guard... who do you think the #1 was?

[TheGeneral99]

Yes and no. Garland definitely has that same synergy between his passing/handles and pull up shooting. Garland is probably underutilized on offense in a similar way to Mavs Nash.

Nash was on a different planet in terms of scoring efficiency though. The numbers paint him as always being an efficiency monster who just didn't miss very shots despite taking lots of difficult ones. Garland is too streaky to really touch that. Then there's the passing. Despite the similar assist numbers, if you video scouted both players you're not going to come away thinking that Garland is as capable of making the same number of passing reads. Nash didn't always have his playmaking volume, but even in Dallas he was showing off those eyes in the back of his head passes.

Mavs Nash was probably still the 2nd best point guard in the league. Garland is struggling to get over the hump from borderline all-star into all-NBA level.

2000-2004 Steve Nash wasn’t the 2nd best PG in the NBA. Maybe top 5 but not the 2nd best. During that time frame I would put Chauncey Billups, and Tony Parker ahead of Nash (during those years). Some might even put Baron Davis, Stephon Marbury, Andre Miller, Richard Hamilton, Mike Bibby, and Steve Francis ahead of 00-04 Nash.

Chris Paul was drafted in ‘05 when Nash was already in Phoenix.

This is wrong for many reasons.

Billups in 2002 and 2003 was considered a solid point guard, but not near being an all-star. He obviously came into his own in 2004, and finally became an all-star in 2005.

Parker only entered the league in 2002, and didn't become an all-star caliber player until 2006 or so.

Davis and Marbury were flashy players, but not close to Nash's level of effectiveness, and played on mediocre teams.

Andre Miller was considered a solid point guard or ideal back-up, never an all-star.

Hamilton isn't a point guard.

Bibby never made an all-star team.

Nash was part of an elite 50-60 win Dallas squad, making the all-star team in 2002 and 2003, while also making the all-NBA third team in both years.

This isn't even close man.

The only point guards you can argue that were better than Nash between 2002-2004 was Kidd and Iverson, but personally I would have taken Nash over AI any day of the week. Kidd is probably the best point guard of the early 2000s, but obviously Nash was the best point guard of the entire decade cumulatively.

[og15]

Cassell was also kind of in the mix.

I will be fair to Mr.B here as I think we are adding some hindsight to this. If we take a season like 00-01 when Nash averaged 15.6 ppg / 7.3 apg in the regular season and 13.6 ppg / 6.4 apg on 42/41 in the playoffs, we were not calling him anything close to the 2nd best PG that year, and guys like Bibby, Miller, Marbury, Francis, etc were considered as good or even better depending on who you asked

That was also Nash's breakout year. He moved up the ranks with his play in 01-02, but even that year Nash wasn't being touted as the no doubt 2nd best PG iirc.

Even in 02-03, Marbury for example had more pts for All-NBA third team than Nash, and Kidd and AI if considered a PG were seen as clearly ahead of Nash as players.

00-01 and 01-02, most likely had Kidd, AI*, Payton ahead of him. Baron Davis was just a second year guy, he wasn't being promoted as a top 5 PG until 02-03.

02-03 and 03-04, Kidd and AI* generally above, then Marbury got more press due to the Suns doing pretty well in 02-03, Cassell actually got props for his post and impact because of going to Minnesota, and Baron Davis now was in the picture, while Payton got older and moved out.

Those 4 years combined you would have:
Kidd, Payton, AI, Nash, Cassell, Davis, Marbury as the point guards being discussed as top 5. Cassell not as much as he wasn't as appreciated impact wise IMO. Francis had a little hype which died quickly, he was like a pre-Westbrook, but worse.

Guys like Dre Miller and Bibby weren't really able to push into the top PG convo. Billups didn't enter into top PG convo until post championship, so 04-05, he was improving as a player overall through this time.

I'd say overall through this seasons, we didn't look at Nash as the 2nd best PG, Kidd stayed at the top 2 position, AI was generally the other guy. If you take out AI, Kidd was #1, then other guys rotated, probably like Payton real early in the 00's, then Nash realistically, but in real time, Marbury had some press and Davis has an argument too.

[Hoop Hunter]

Horrible comparison. Nash was a pass 1st PG, who could score. Garland is more of a SG, in a PG's body.

[celtxman]

I'm grateful for this thread. It gives me the confidence to ask the board if Michael Jordan is a good comp for Derrick White thread I'm currently working on

[uncleduck13]

Y’all acting like this comparison is the biggest reach ever, when in actuality, it’s pretty fair.

Nash in Dallas wasn’t considered the Stockton-like, high assist PG that he’s known to be now. His best years in Dallas were fairly comparable to the numbers that DG just put up this season. 18 & 7. Obviously the splits are higher, but Garland himself isn’t exactly inefficient. 45/37/83 is pretty solid, especially for a guy dealing with injuries all season.

The point I’m trying to make is that Garland is an all-star level PG, playing in a system that isn’t very offensive friendly and where he isn’t the focal point of the offense. Like Nash, the perception around him dramatically changes once you put him in the right situation. For those comparing him to Marbury, Francis, and D-Lo Just admit you aren’t familiar with his game. I’m not the only one who sees the Nash-like flair.

https://youtu.be/f0XntMgNryg?feature=shared

[toooskies]

Just keep in mind with the Nash comparisons that Nash was averaging 8 points and 5.5 assists when he was Garland's age.

[vincecarter4pres]

I think he was the 2nd best point guad in the NBA in 2002 and 2003. 2004 Mavs had too many cooks for Nash's playmaking/scoring to be as impactful, and before 2002 Nash was still ramping up. Even if you aren't personally high on Nash, the media was at the time. Nash made all-NBA 3rd team both years. Kidd finished ahead of him, and one year a 33-year-old Gary Payton did too.

Some of the players you're suggesting weren't on the timeline you're imagining:

- Billups didn't start making waves until 2004, but despite that finals MVP, he didn't become that perfect floor general until 2006. He was averaging 16 and 5 in his best seasons before 2006.

- Tony Parker didn't make his first all-star team until 2006. He's not in any conversation about best point guards from 2000-2004 (His rookie season was 2002).

- You've got to be kidding me with Starbury and Steve Francis. They were exciting and popular but there's no evidence they helped teams win basketball games.

- Baron Davis vs. Steve Nash is a fun debate. Davis had pretty bad scoring efficiency, but he legitimately provided big rim pressure and playmaking. He was healthy enough during this stretch of time too.

- Rip Hamilton is a shooting guard and made his first all-star team in 2006.

- Mike Bibby was solid and had a couple of impressive scoring runs in the playoffs... but what's really his case over Nash? 0 time all-star who was more solid than spectacular. Good shooter but not an amazingly efficient overall scorer. Big assist guy in Vancouver, but not really a brilliant playmaker overall. He was pretty good in 2004?

Feel like we’ve forgotten Jason Kidd existed.

If the subject of this back and forth was whether or not Nash was the #2 point guard... who do you think the #1 was?

I had a senior moment

[cupcakesnake]

Just keep in mind with the Nash comparisons that Nash was averaging 8 points and 5.5 assists when he was Garland's age.

I usually think this kind of reminder is important, but in Nash's case the trajectory is so uncommon.

Nash was a senior at a little-known school, but got drafted to a team that already had Kevin Johnson, Jason Kidd, and Sam Cassell. He was quite good immediately, but there were no minutes. When he finally gets an opportunity to start, he gets injured. So Nash's career doesn't really get rolling until he's 26, but he miraculously makes up for lost time by having a very late prime and then stahying good throughout all his mid-to-late 30s.

Garland came into the NBA at age 19 after playing only 5 college games, but was immediately put into a starting role on a bad team. It's not like we can expect Garland or anyone to have a Nash like late blooming. Garland can improve, but we've already gotten the opportunity to see his game in a big role.

[maverick_41]

I fell in with basketball after watching a Dallas game in 2003. The main reason was Nash-fueled offense.

In spring of 2024 I considered Boston - Cleveland as the most unwatchable series, trailing only to Cleveland - Orlando. Had the Cavs employed 2003 Nash, it would have been way funnier.

So with all due respect to Garland, let's not compare him to Nellyball's captain.

[JujitsuFlip]

Horrible comparison. Nash was a pass 1st PG, who could score. Garland is more of a SG, in a PG's body.

If you've never watched Garland play, just say that.

[shi-woo]

Honestly he reminds me more of Kemba Walker than Steve Nash, and think that's the level of player he is and is going to be. Obviously he's more of a PG than Kemba, but I think that has more to do with team and current NBA rather than skillset.

[Hoop Hunter]

Horrible comparison. Nash was a pass 1st PG, who could score. Garland is more of a SG, in a PG's body.

If you've never watched Garland play, just say that.

Many times. He gets some assists sure. He has never seemed like a creative passer, not guy that really screams passing PG. He's more of a scorer, from what I've seen. Not saying he's not a good player. The Nash comparison just doesn't compute with me.

[JujitsuFlip]

Horrible comparison. Nash was a pass 1st PG, who could score. Garland is more of a SG, in a PG's body.

If you've never watched Garland play, just say that.

Many times. He gets some assists sure. He has never seemed like a creative passer, I guy that really screams passing PG. He's more of a scorer, from what I've seen. Not saying he's not a good player. The Nash comparison just doesn't compute with me.

The archetype is a good comparison, imo.

You have to keep in mind, Garland has had to share the back court with an undersized ball dominant SG his entire career.

The one season Garland was allowed to actually play lead guard for most of the season, his stat line is that of a pass first PG. He's not gonna shoot it to the level or assist it to the level of Nash but that is his true archetype.

Hence the rumors swirling his agent will ask him to be traded if Mitchell returns.

[Chokic]

Horrible comparison. Nash was a pass 1st PG, who could score. Garland is more of a SG, in a PG's body.

If you've never watched Garland play, just say that.

Many times. He gets some assists sure. He has never seemed like a creative passer, not guy that really screams passing PG. He's more of a scorer, from what I've seen. Not saying he's not a good player. The Nash comparison just doesn't compute with me.

Garland is more of a playmaker that can score ala nash than a scorer that can pass.

[tdotrep2]

Nash's court vision might of been the best of all time... I mean that's a big reason of what makes steve, steve

[toooskies]

Just keep in mind with the Nash comparisons that Nash was averaging 8 points and 5.5 assists when he was Garland's age.

I usually think this kind of reminder is important, but in Nash's case the trajectory is so uncommon.

Nash was a senior at a little-known school, but got drafted to a team that already had Kevin Johnson, Jason Kidd, and Sam Cassell. He was quite good immediately, but there were no minutes. When he finally gets an opportunity to start, he gets injured. So Nash's career doesn't really get rolling until he's 26, but he miraculously makes up for lost time by having a very late prime and then stahying good throughout all his mid-to-late 30s.

Garland came into the NBA at age 19 after playing only 5 college games, but was immediately put into a starting role on a bad team. It's not like we can expect Garland or anyone to have a Nash like late blooming. Garland can improve, but we've already gotten the opportunity to see his game in a big role.

Garland has the same number of all-star appearances as Nash did in the first 10,300 minutes of his career.