Mourning v Nash better career, prime and peak

[trex_8063]

Per 100 -
Mourning - 29.1pts (career), 31pts (prime), 33.5pts (peak)
Nash - 23.3,pts (career) 24.5pts (prime), 26.4ots (peak)

Mourning the significantly better scorer. Nash playmaked great but overall if he's better offensively it isn't by alot.

rTS%:
Mourning - +5.3% (career), +7.3% (peak; except for a +7.9% in low-rate scoring 20 mpg season in '06)
Nash - +7.5% (career), +11.3% (peak)

Per 100:
Mourning - 1.9 ast (career), 3.1 (peak)
Nash - 13.8 ast (career), 17.5 (peak)
[while turnovers are nearly identical]

*Modified TOV%:
Mourning - 13.01% (career rs), 14.35% (career ps)
Nash - 8.26% (career rs), 8.24% (career ps)
*Unlike TOV%, mTOV% doesn't factor in ONLY shot volume and turnovers, but also playmaking and rebounding. There are positional differences: average for a PG [or pseudo-"primary initiator"] is ~7.6-8%, average for a center is ~11.0%]......so even calibrated for position, Nash is better by nearly 1.5% [conservatively] in the rs, closer to 3% in the ps.

Best rORTG's ever led or major contributor to:
*Mourning - +2.6, +2.5 (both with T.Hardaway, J.Mashburn, D.Majerle), +2.1(with M.Bogues, L.Johson, H.Hawkins, Dell Curry),
*There was another +2.5 he played 20 mpg for (was also a +4.1 in '05 [with Shaq, early D.Wade, Eddie Jones, but Zo played just 19 games at <13 mpg).
Nash - +9.2, +8.4, +7.7 (twice), +7.4, +7.1, +5.8, +5.3 (twice), +4.1, +2.5, +2.4, +2.2
^^^Gap in playoff offenses is a little bigger.


I'll likely bow out here, as I'm not inclined to spend a lot of time tilting at wind-mills.

These threads seem to run a similar pattern, which a couple of replies have indicated that I'm not the only one who sees it coming a mile away:
1) You post a thread/question, seemingly in good faith [occasionally even professing no agenda], almost imploring people to provide their opinions and backing arguments.
2a) You proceed to disregard their opinions and arguments while you [in so many words] tell us we're all dumb and biased, and....
2b) Declare your opinion [generally in favour of the 90s player in the equation] is correct, and supporting it with....
2c) Declarations like ppg = offensive goodness as a "case-closed" type of argument (all while ridiculing others for lack of depth in their analysis).

It's a little tiresome (after so many repeats).
If you already know you're right, why bother asking the question? Compulsion to convince others?

[migya]

Per 100 -
Mourning - 29.1pts (career), 31pts (prime), 33.5pts (peak)
Nash - 23.3,pts (career) 24.5pts (prime), 26.4ots (peak)

Mourning the significantly better scorer. Nash playmaked great but overall if he's better offensively it isn't by alot.

rTS%:
Mourning - +5.3% (career), +7.3% (peak; except for a +7.9% in low-rate scoring 20 mpg season in '06)
Nash - +7.5% (career), +11.3% (peak)

Per 100:
Mourning - 1.9 ast (career), 3.1 (peak)
Nash - 13.8 ast (career), 17.5 (peak)
[while turnovers are nearly identical]

*Modified TOV%:
Mourning - 13.01% (career rs), 14.35% (career ps)
Nash - 8.26% (career rs), 8.24% (career ps)
*Unlike TOV%, mTOV% doesn't factor in ONLY shot volume and turnovers, but also playmaking and rebounding. There are positional differences: average for a PG [or pseudo-"primary initiator"] is ~7.6-8%, average for a center is ~11.0%]......so even calibrated for position, Nash is better by nearly 1.5% [conservatively] in the rs, closer to 3% in the ps.

Best rORTG's ever led or major contributor to:
*Mourning - +2.6, +2.5 (both with T.Hardaway, J.Mashburn, D.Majerle), +2.1(with M.Bogues, L.Johson, H.Hawkins, Dell Curry),
*There was another +2.5 he played 20 mpg for (was also a +4.1 in '05 [with Shaq, early D.Wade, Eddie Jones, but Zo played just 19 games at <13 mpg).
Nash - +9.2, +8.4, +7.7 (twice), +7.4, +7.1, +5.8, +5.3 (twice), +4.1, +2.5, +2.4, +2.2
^^^Gap in playoff offenses is a little bigger.


I'll likely bow out here, as I'm not inclined to spend a lot of time tilting at wind-mills.

These threads seem to run a similar pattern, which a couple of replies have indicated that I'm not the only one who sees it coming a mile away:
1) You post a thread/question, seemingly in good faith [occasionally even professing no agenda], almost imploring people to provide their opinions and backing arguments.
2a) You proceed to disregard their opinions and arguments while you [in so many words] tell us we're all dumb and biased, and....
2b) Declare your opinion [generally in favour of the 90s player in the equation] is correct, and supporting it with....
2c) Declarations like ppg = offensive goodness as a "case-closed" type of argument (all while ridiculing others for lack of depth in their analysis).

It's a little tiresome (after so many repeats).
If you already know you're right, why bother asking the question? Compulsion to convince others?

Can you show where you got that information?

I don't understand and agree with some views and conclusions by some. I go by the information/numbers, I would like to know of other information that others may use and the application of it. Some have made statements without facts to back that up and It doesn't make sense, especially how some of those ones use facts fairly often.

I've done more than list ppg, that's an untrue statement.

[migya]

Mourning is an overlooked player in an all-time sense imo. Playing at the same time as Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing and Mutombo is tough. However, for peak I think this comparison with Nash is basically a pick'em. I'd probably give the edge to Nash for more convincing play-off performance but it's closer than most would probably think on first look. In terms of prime I don't agree Mourning was only good in 2000 but even then Nash clearly has more years at an elite level. For career the comparison could've been fair if Mourning could've played out his career without the kidney problems. Taking that into consideration, Mourning was already declining somewhat after 2000 (his age 29 season), while Nash came scarily close to winning his 3rd consecutive MVP at the same age Mourning missed a full season and never fully recovered.

Besides the Suns having a great offense what makes Nash better than Mourning? Look at the numbers, Nash doesn't have alltime great numbers to support the claims his so great. For being such a horrible defender, her had to not only playmaker at an elite level but score as well. He was rather unique, in a good and bad way, but he isn't overall better than a number of players he is often listed ahead of.

Let's just slow down a bit there. I did look at the numbers, just that there are more numbers than what you posted. This comes up all the time so I'm confused how you still seem to fail to understand this. I'm probably closer to your approach than most because I use boxscore metrics like WS and BPM quite heavily, while a significant amount of posters dismiss them altogether or use them as a minor factor at best. That said when we're talking about players who played at a time with more sophisticated metrics available we should definitely factor those in as well. Even with all that, Mourning doesn't even have better boxscore metrics than Nash. Yet I stil clearly acknowledge that at their peak I don't see much between them and then you still ask me why I think Nash is so great?

"Nash had to be an elite playmaker and shooter to compensate for his weak defense" Well yeah but he did that so what's your point? The last point especially is pretty empty without further context. "He's better than a number of players he is often listed ahead of" Ok, who and why?

I just find it weird you want me to go into detail of what makes Nash so great when I have one of the least pro-Nash replies on your question and am in general lower than him than the concencus on this board. Maybe that's a sign for you to reflect when even people who aren't as high on Nash have him higher than you to such a degree that you think they're super bullish on him.

First of all, show those numbness, it'd make it clearer and add to the topic. I don't see how metrics here favor Nash? I listed them in the first post. Nash has played more games and ultimately gives him a better career but at prime or in their best seasons, Mourning looks better.

Nash wasn't an elite scorer, I showed that, though he was as a playmaker. It's obvious that he was a bad defender.

My point is that Mourning was a good two way player and Nash wasn't. Mourning was great at a very important aspect such is interior defense, while also scoring quite well. Nash maximised his teammates, a very important aspect also, but his direct opponent would often have a high chance of equalizing at the other end.

[HeartBreakKid]

Why does Mourning get props for "scoring quite well" but Nash does not?

Mourning did not score that many points and his efficiency wasn't nearly as good as Steve's. Mourning was also insanely turnover prone. If you wanted to get a bucket then Nash would be a smarter bet - if you're asking where the numbers are...look at their stats? I mean it's right there. Nash had several seasons where he averaged about 18 points per game which is close to what Mourning usually averages - the efficiency gap is more than worth 1 FGM difference.

They aren't close on offense. There are more levels to the game than "good offense" and "bad offense".

You do not need to look at Nash's team offense to see that he is an elite offensive player (though I do not get why we cannot use that as evidence but you can use the Heat's defense as evidence for Mourning?)

It's also strange how you seem against this idea that Nash is one of the GOAT shooters and that there are "no stats" that show that. He obviously has stellar shooting stats, why not start looking there? 50/40/90 club is a pretty exclusive club especially when he joined it.

He lead the league in TS% as a point guard (twice) - my guess is that Steve Nash did not have high TS because he was slam dunking.

[70sFan]

Averaging over 10rebs before his kidney problem isn't below average. You are being comical now.

You are right, I overstated the problem. 16.3 TRB% isn't below average, but it's not good for an all-star center either.

For career:
CP:
49.3% - 10-16
46.9% - 16-3P
37% - 3P

Old man Stockton, age 34-40
46.1% - 10-16
49.8% - 16-3P
39.5% - 3P

Durant
47.5% - 10-16
45% - 16- 3P
38.4% - 3P

They have similar numbers than Nash. There's no numbers before 1997 otherwise Bird and West, probably a few others would have such numbers.

So you post numbers for the other of the greatest shooters ever who all have worse numbers than Nash and conclude he's definitely not in conversation? Seriously?

They give a pretty good indication. Mourning was an efficient and good level scorer in his career, always as the #1 option. Nash was never really the fist option for his team.

No, they don't. We have a lot of evidences that many volume scorers don't have as big impact as the best playmakers.

Mourning isn't elite scorer. He's an efficient finisher with decent volume that got worse in the playoffs and has no playmaking value. He's solid but very limited first option on offense.

Nash was always first option on offense since he joined Phoenix.

Again, Mourning is better and that's with almost half his playoff games at the end of his career as a backup

Then they don't show Nash in a good light either. He was worse in the playoffs also.

No, these stats don't show Mourning as the better player. You don't even understand what most of them measure.

Defense is one of the most important things.

True, one of the most important things. The offensive gap is massive though, you can't deny that.

So by your view Moses and Olajuwon aren't as good.

No, because Olajuwon was better on both ends of the floor and Moses was far better offensive player than Mourning. Again, stop absolutizing one criteria - you should be aware that evaluation process can be more nuanced that that.

So much ignoring of much just to push the agenda, even if the facts don't line up.

Please, remind me what "facts" I ignored...

[migya]

Why does Mourning get props for "scoring quite well" but Nash does not?

Mourning did not score that many points and his efficiency wasn't nearly as good as Steve's. Mourning was also insanely turnover prone. If you wanted to get a bucket then Nash would be a smarter bet - if you're asking where the numbers are...look at their stats? I mean it's right there. Nash had several seasons where he averaged about 18 points per game which is close to what Mourning usually averages - the efficiency gap is more than worth FGM difference.

They aren't close on offense. There are more levels to the game than "good offense" and "bad offense".

You do not need to look at Nash's team offense to see that he is an elite offensive player (though I do not get why we cannot use that as evidence but you can use the Heat's defense as evidence for Mourning?)

It's also strange how you seem against this idea that Nash is one of the GOAT shooters and that there are "no stats" that show that. He obviously has stellar shooting stats, why not start looking there? 50/40/90 club is a pretty exclusive club especially when he joined it.

He lead the league in TS% as a point guard (twice) - my guess is that Steve Nash did not have high TS because he was slam dunking.

I answered that previously;

Yet another fact based response. Really in depth analysis.

- Much better passer? He's a PG, Mourning's a Center that was the focal point for scoring on his teams. That's like saying, Mourning was a better rebounder, again, really in depth.

Nash is basically the greatest passer and playmaker in NBA history (with Magic being the only other competitor), so yeah that matters a lot. Mourning averaged 7.9 AST% and 15.0 TOV% in his prime, that's arguably the worst ever among the main scoring options on solid playoff teams. So yeah, we'te not comparing a random PG vs random C here - we're comparing the greatest passer ever to one of the worst passers among stars. It matters a lot.

Your false analogy in rebounding doesn't work here, because Mourning is below average rebounder for his position, so this difference doesn't represent the gap well.

- Arguably the 2nd best shooter ever? No he wasn't. No proof for such a big statement.

2001-12 Nash:

48.0% from 10-16
48.5% from 16-3P
43.2% from 3P
90.8% from FT line

The only argument against him is volume, but his shooting profile is nothing short of incredible. On top of that, basically all of his points were self-created.

- Significantly better offensive impact? Because he was the PG on the great scoring Phoenix team from 2005-2010(11)?

No, because the strategic shift (giving Nash the ball all the time) turned his team into the greatest offensive team ever and elite offensive team even after D'Antoni left.

Per 100 -
Mourning - 29.1pts (career), 31pts (prime), 33.5pts (peak)
Nash - 23.3,pts (career) 24.5pts (prime), 26.4ots (peak)

Mourning the significantly better scorer. Nash playmaked great but overall if he's better offensively it isn't by alot.

Now include efficiency and postseason numbers.

The idea that scoring numbers gives you the answer who is better offensive player is completely flawed as well.

- Longer prime? Yes, because of Mourning's kidney disease but for best 8 years, a considerable amount of seasons:

So you agree.

- Far better postseason career in terms of team and individual performance? Team performance isn't largely based on one player and so isn't a strong indicator of a player most of the time. Garnett in Minnesota is a relevant example for you.

Per 100 -
Nash - 120gm, 47.3fg%, 5.1reb, 12.8ast, 0.8stl, 0.2blk, 4.6tos, 25pts, 116OR, 114DR, 19.8PER, 58.3ts%, 11.7ows, 0.1dws, 11.9ws, .133ws/48, 3.2bpm, 5.6vorp, +2.1 on court, +4.7 on/off

Mourning - 95gm, 51.2fg%,14.1reb, 1.7ast, 1stl, 4.5blk, 4.8tos, 27.3pts, 103OR, 98DR, 19.2PER, 57.7ts%, 2.1ows, 5.4dws, 7.5ws, .139ws/48, 2.8bpm, 3.1vorp, +6.4 on court, +7.6 on/off


Again, Mourning is better and that's with almost half his playoff games at the end of his career as a backup.

Even these limited numbers don't show Mourning in better light...

- Bigger impact on a team after he joined in? As has been said by many and is the main factor, D'Antoni's system/style was what made it work.

What is this system about exactly?

Mourning arrived in Miami and once they got a pretty good roster, in 1997, they performed well. Those Miami teams didn't have the talent Nash's Phoenix teams had, particularly offensively.

They had much more defensive talent though and they didn't miss a bit when Mourning missed full season in 2001.

*Defense is the factor that makes Mourning better. He was a good scorer and great defender, Nash was a good scorer and offensive player and horrible defender.

Mourning is also horrible passer and mediocre rebounder. Don't ignore important things.

- Your false analogy in rebounding doesn't work here, because Mourning is below average rebounder for his position, so this difference doesn't represent the gap well.
Averaging over 10rebs before his kidney problem isn't below average. You are being comical now.


- 2001-12 Nash:

48.0% from 10-16
48.5% from 16-3P
43.2% from 3P
90.8% from FT line


For career:
CP:
49.3% - 10-16
46.9% - 16-3P
37% - 3P

Old man Stockton, age 34-40
46.1% - 10-16
49.8% - 16-3P
39.5% - 3P

Durant
47.5% - 10-16
45% - 16- 3P
38.4% - 3P

They have similar numbers than Nash. There's no numbers before 1997 otherwise Bird and West, probably a few others would have such numbers.


- The idea that scoring numbers gives you the answer who is better offensive player is completely flawed as well.
They give a pretty good indication. Mourning was an efficient and good level scorer in his career, always as the #1 option. Nash was never really the fist option for his team.


- Per 100 -
Nash - 120gm, 47.3fg%, 5.1reb, 12.8ast, 0.8stl, 0.2blk, 4.6tos, 25pts, 116OR, 114DR, 19.8PER, 58.3ts%, 11.7ows, 0.1dws, 11.9ws, .133ws/48, 3.2bpm, 5.6vorp, +2.1 on court, +4.7 on/off

Mourning - 95gm, 51.2fg%,14.1reb, 1.7ast, 1stl, 4.5blk, 4.8tos, 27.3pts, 103OR, 98DR, 19.2PER, 57.7ts%, 2.1ows, 5.4dws, 7.5ws, .139ws/48, 2.8bpm, 3.1vorp, +6.4 on court, +7.6 on/off


Again, Mourning is better and that's with almost half his playoff games at the end of his career as a backup

Even these limited numbers don't show Mourning in better light...

Then they don't show Nash in a good light either. He was worse in the playoffs also.


- *Defense is the factor that makes Mourning better. He was a good scorer and great defender, Nash was a good scorer and offensive player and horrible defender.

Nash was one of, if not the best, shooters of his era. That doesn't mean he was alot more efficient or a better scorer than Mourning. The numbers enlarged above show this. Nash wasn't a big scorer, he was a big playmaker.

Mourning's Heat teams didn't have other great defenders, they had a couple of good ones, like PJ Brown and à past prime Majerle. Nash has among the best scoring and shooting teams of his era. Amare and Marion were very good scorers. Quentin Richardson, Bell, Barbosa, Jason Richardson, Channing Frye and other very good shooters for one or two seasons from 2005-12. That was the perfect setting for Nash.

[70sFan]

PJ Brown wasn't a great defender, but Shawn Marion was "very good scorer". Yeah, I'm done here.

[Owly]

I love how you think that Nash being one of the greatest playmakers of all time doesn't matter because he's a point guard and that's what they're supposed to do (doesn't make sense) but Alozno Mourning's defense totally counts when he plays center.

Nash is much closer to being the best playmaker than Mourning is the best defender. Has nothing to do with their positions.

And I'm not anti-Alonzo but the idea that since he's a scoring focus his weak passing (career: 1.9 assists per 100 pos, 6.7 assist%, 0.428248076 A/T ratio [latter a clumsy tool given turnovers come about in things other than creating for others]) doesn't matter is interesting. If the ball's going to him surely it matters more that he's not predictable, no?

I didn't imply that he was a great offensive player. He didn't pass to a good level but he was a good scorer and that was in response to it being said that Nash was a better scorer. Mourning was a great player on both ends, better defender than offensively but still, very good two way player. Nash only has his offense to be considered at all as he was horrible defensively.

Didn't pass to a good level is generous.

It depends what type of data you trust but especially if you trust on/off type stuff, Nash highlights the problem with a "1-way, versus 2-way" paradigm, a player like Nash can be so great on one end (and perhaps, underrated and around neutral on the other) that they overcome a more evenly distributed good contribution. That isn't necessarily what happens here, but it could be.

Whilst longevity is acknowledged, I'll note that the +8.1 Nash on-off can be upped to +8.9 extending to a 10 year span (03-12), to +10.8 selecting a different 8 year span (05-12) or sustained at + 8.1 for a 13 year span (2000-2012) - the latter probably gaining from so collinearity with Dirk.

Fwiw internal consistency on "I didn't imply that he was a great offensive player" ... "Mourning was a great player on both ends" ... both can be true (if it wasn't stated before, only now) but it's a technicality. Regardless it wasn't stated or implied that you had (only an implication that "the focal point for scoring on his teams" could be seen as exacerbating, rather than excusing weak passing).


To try to add some more data, on-off 94-96 (as ever these aren't directly sourced from play-by-play and so are approximates at he margins, with assumptions about pace)
94: 6.8 (significant off sample, LJ also misses substanial time, mostly overlapping - Zo plays 60, misses 22; LJ plays 51, misses 31; they play together for 50, Zo only for 10, LJ only for 1, neither for 21).
95: 9.2
96: 9.8

[trex_8063]

Can you show where you got that information?

I assume you're referring to mTOV% (as all the rest is easily found on bbref [or easily calculated where rTS% is concerned]).

Modified TOV% starts with the framework of TOV% [that is on bbref]. TOV% considers only two inputs, turnovers and true shooting attempts:
TOV / (TOV + TSA)
mTOV% then adds in some of the other things a player might be attempting when a turnover is committed: namely playmaking for others (though also rebounding factored in). The formula in its current rendition is:

TOV / (TOV + TSA + [AST * 2.33] + [REB * 0.04])

The rationale behind the modifier (2.33) on assists is that for every pass that is completed [without turnover] for an assist, there is likely MORE THAN one other pass which was completed but the shot was missed [no assist] or the teammate was fouled and sent to the line [also no assist]. To be precise, the formula estimates that for every THREE passes completed for an assist, there were FOUR passes completed on which no assist was awarded.
What transpires immediately after a rebound can sometimes result in a turnover: the occasionaly high risk/high reward outlet pass will sometimes result in a turnover; or [because rebounds typically occur in traffic] a player might be stripped of the ball immediately after securing the rebound. The modifier (0.04) assumes that there is one turnover immediately after rebound once for every 25 rebounds secured. It might be marginally more than that, like 1 out of 20 (would then change modifier to 0.05; though fwiw, such adjustments barely move the figure at all).

While it's true some passes thrown are so basic that it would be hard to commit a turnover [unless one throws it WAY off the mark], the same can be said of some scoring attempts (e.g. a catch and shoot, a face-up shot from the elbow, etc).

Some people have suggested I should make the modifier on assists LARGER, because the players who accrues lots of assists is typically a player with a lot of ball-handling responsibilities [e.g. brings the ball into the front-court, initiates the offense] (which is another activity that can potentially result in a turnover), and they're also players who are likely throwing more NON-assist passes [e.g. basic pass to the wing or ball-reversal to a teammate NOT in immediate position to shoot/score] (which are also activities that could result in a turnover).

Just to give an idea where some other players [at their own position: Zo compared only to other centers, Nash only to other PG's or "offensive initiators"] land in mTOV% (career rs figures, fwiw; obviously the lower the figure the better):

Chris Paul - 5.96%
Muggsy Bogues - 5.98%
Derek Harper - 7.15%
Mookie Blaylock - 7.28%
Chauncey Billups - 7.37%
Tim Hardaway - 7.38%
Mo Cheeks - 7.49%
Jason Kidd - 8.03%
Eric Snow - 8.06%
Stephen Curry - 8.260%
Steve Nash - 8.264%
Magic Johnson - 8.36%
Vern Fleming - 8.50%
Isiah Thomas - 8.53%
Luka Doncic - 8.61%
Russell Westbrook - 8.99%
Gilbert Arenas - 9.16%
James Harden - 9.26%


Al Horford - 6.93%
Dan Issel [minus '77] - 7.71%
Bill Laimbeer - 8.14%
Nikola Jokic - 8.24%
Pau Gasol - 8.58%
Anderson Varejao - 8.86%
Tim Duncan - 8.92%
David Robinson - 9.17%
Ben Wallace - 9.28%
Shaquille O'Neal - 9.38%
Jack Sikma - 9.52%
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar ['78-'89] - 9.74%
Joel Embiid - 10.07%
Hakeem Olajuwon - 10.28%
Robert Parish - 11.12%
Patrick Ewing - 11.19%
DeMarcus Cousins - 11.38%
Rudy Gobert - 11.49%
Mel Daniels [minus '77] - 11.58%
Yao Ming - 11.87%
Moses Malone [minus '77] - 12.47%
Alonzo Mourning - 13.01%
Artis Gilmore [minus '77] - 13.15%
Dikembe Mutombo - 13.77%
Dwight Howard - 13.78%
Tyson Chandler - 13.89%
Jeff Ruland - 14.49% [the rock-bottom worst career figure I've yet identified, fwiw)

btw, placing a larger modifier on AST with improve Nash's mTOV% vs the field of PG's, but worsen Mourning's slightly vs the field of centers.

I've done more than list ppg, that's an untrue statement.

I mis-represented you slightly [for that I'm sorry]; but only slightly in the portion quoted.

What you DID do [in that quote] was show ONLY pts/100 possession figures (where Zo averaged ~6-7 more than Nash)---no accounting of shooting efficiency or turnover economy, shot-type, etc---and used that as the proof that "Mourning [is] the significantly better scorer".

Whereas I'd note that:
1) Yes, Mourning averaged 6-7 more pts/100 [gap narrows somewhat in the playoffs, fwiw], but...
2) with shooting efficiency that **trails Nash by >2%.
**And I note, for example, that Mourning's peak TS Added is 212.2, and his 2nd-best season is 140.0. Nash has THREE seasons better than Mourning's best [peaking at 242.8], and NINE seasons better than Zo's 2nd-best year.
3) and with worse all-around turnover economy [even relative to position played],
4) and while having about two-thirds of his buckets assisted (whereas Nash had fewer than one-third of his assisted).

....From all that I'd seriously question if Mourning is a better scorer at all. If he is, it certainly is not by any "significant" margin.


Further, you gave the playmaking edge [to Nash] only a vague and dismissive mention (stating in other places that it's a function of position played, little more); and then based on Mourning being [in your view] a somewhat better scorer, declare that Nash might not be a better offensive player at all ("if"), and if he is it "isn't by a lot".

I mean......in addition to the question as to whether Zo's even a better scorer (see above), the gap in creation for others is enormous. The gap in career ast/100 [13.8 vs 1.9] is 11.9........that's more assists/100 than LeBron James has ever averaged in any season. EVER.
And the peak vs peak or prime vs prime gap is even bigger, fwiw.

That's how large the playmaking divide is. It is like the Grand Canyon of divides. And anyone who watched Nash play knows his assists are largely NOT of the Rondo-variety.
Oh, and he did all of that at the cost of basically NO additional turnovers relative to Zo.


As a further point of evidence of who was better offensively, I'll [for s***'s and giggles] bring up some numbers which I know from past experience you will disregard.....

Zo's BEST ORAPM was +2.99 [his 2nd-best is +1.99].

Nash's ORAPM was never lower than +4 in any of the SEVEN years from '05 to '11, peaking at a monstrous [historically GOAT-level] +7.9 (fwiw, that is a larger positive than any DRAPM that has ever been achieved by anyone).
That was one of TWO seasons above +7, and he had FIVE that were above +6 (that is: FIVE seasons that were more than double Zo's best).
He had at least one or two others of +2 or bigger. And fwiw, I think his worth [as measured by RAPM] suffered from some line-up colinearity masking while in Dallas (though that's just opinion/speculation).