NY 567 wrote:For clarification, I said Nash was a top 5 offensive player of all time. Obviously his defense, physical limitations, and lack of championships would leave him quite far out from top 5 all time, for me he'd probably be somewhere in the top 25-30 of all time.
Yup, that's the right distinction.
To go into a bit more detail, here are 10 guys I'd tend to consider if I were looking to do a Top 5:
Oscar Robertson - fulcrum of the first offensive dynasty, in the sense of regularly having the best team Offensive Rating. Clearly the most impactful offensive player of the '60s.
Jerry West - a "what if?" candidate. He was clearly the #2 offensive player of his decade in terms of what he actually accomplished, but he wasn't utilized well due to Elgin Baylor's looming presence. The way he learned new skills and worked so well in the Princeton offense to me really indicates that he probably had as high of a BBIQ as anyone else plus a great shot. He maybe should have been seen as the offensive GOAT all the way until the '80s, but because of how things played out.
Larry Bird - if forced to rate BBIQ in terms of the ability to read & react to what was going on on the floor, I'd pick Bird. They way he approached the game put something of a ceiling on how far you could optimize the team around him, but it made him more portable than dominant on-ball players such as...
Magic Johnson - fulcrum of the second offensive dynasty, and typically considered the best offensive player of all time among those who see offense as more than scoring.
Michael Jordan - the most effective scorer of all-time.
Charles Barkley - we can knock him down because of his spotty attitude, but Barkley was an astonishing force who could dominate on the interior, run the break, and shoot from a variety of ranges. I honestly think you have to wonder whether Jordan in Barkley's body is better than Jordan was.
Shaquille O"Neal - the only classic big man I'd consider. His impact was astonishing despite all his lazy intangibles.
Steve Nash - fulcrum of the third offensive dynasty, which would eventually revolutionize the game itself in a way Oscar's would not. Magic was more complicated because...
LeBron James - the league now has a lot of players who are essentially doing LeBron impressions. LeBron was inspired by Magic, but Magic was seen as a fluke that couldn't be emulated...which is another way of saying people were wrong about Magic. No you can't do everything that Magic does as well as Magic does it, but relying on one mega-brain to power your entire offense actually works pretty dang well...particularly when you've got 3-point shooters around you.
Steph Curry - fulcrum of the fourth offensive dynasty, and the current cutting edge of what's possible in basketball. A serious candidate to become the offensive GOAT, but right now his spottiness makes it hard to pick him.
In terms of the actual ranking, it's hard because of the different eras.
If Jordan plays today like he played back in the day, he wouldn't be as good relative to others using state-of-the-art strategy. The moment the NBA realized that role players could shoot 3's really well, that made the value of volume scoring lower and the value of passing higher. Jordan would have to adapt, and if he could, he might well be the best offensive player of the current era.
Should we hold the fact that he wasn't using 2010s techniques in 1990 against him?
What about Kobe? Similar story with slightly like Jordan-esque talent but better long-distance shooting. I really think if he were born later he could play the LeBron role really well...but the thing is that he was actually younger than Nash. The new paradigm was right in front of him and he was skeptic #1. How much do we hold it against Kobe that he didn't adapt when he could have when he won 5 titles?
And then there's Jerry Freaking West. Built similarly to Dwyane Wade with the same freakish long arms, better shooting, better playmaking, savvier defense, willing and able to adapt from year to year and learn new systems better than everyone else. What might he have been if people had understood what was possible?
And then how do you compare Bird to Magic? Their impact is of a different shape because they approach the game differently. How do we say who was truly better?
Gun to my head I tend to say something like:
1. Magic
2. Bird
3. Nash
4. Jordan
5. LeBron
Before anyone asks: If you want to say that LeBron should be higher than Nash because of superior stamina, durability, etc, I have no quibble with you. I'm just going by how I tend to think of them playing their best.