Highest possible ranking for Steve Nash?

[cupcakesnake]

Did someone just compare 2 time MVP Nash to Mo Cheeks, Fat Lever and Billups?

In the user's own words they use both a "laugh test" and a "smell test" in their analysis, so I don't think it should be questioned!

[cupcakesnake]

I sometimes think overstating Nash's defensive weaknesses comes across as disingenuous.

I'd happily agree with the following:
1. Nash is not a realy good defender.
2. Relative to other all-time greats, Nash is amongst the least impactful defensively.

But when people come on here and really try to hammer how awful he was on defense... I don't evidence of that. I've watched and rewatched so much Nash tape. I'd describe his defense as follows:

High-motor, active, high basketball IQ. Strong positional defender. Executes schemes. Never loses focus. Great at beating guys to spots to draw charges (ala Lowry). Good at funneling ball handlers into help. No real physical advantages. Not strong like Stockon or long like Rondo. The lack of strength (Nash suffered from a degenerative back condition) really shows on drives. He could be a bit over-eager on digs and double teams (sometimes giving up straightforward open 3s one pass away). He wasn't disruptive in any way defensively while on the ball, and wasn't big enough to be particularly impactful as a help defender (though his rotations were always solid).

Keep team construction in mind with Nash. It's fair to ding him for the offensively slanted nature of the rosters he played on providing him some great contexts to unleash offensive nirvana on us. But those same rosters exacerbated his defensive weaknesses. He basically never played with a rim protector behind him. A lot of center minutes in Nash's career went to Dirk, Amar'e, Boris Diaw, Tim Thomas etc. If the Nash haters want to ding him for offensive slanted rosters, that's fine, but they can't ding him for both things at the same time. If you think Nash's offense is overrated because of roster construction, his defense automatically becomes underrated scaled precisely to that offensive slant.

I see a slightly below average guard defender when I watch Nash tape (the numbers most agree with this). I think that keeps him out of top 10 discussion (where Magic is the only below average defender imo), but relative to guys in the 15-30 range, there are plenty of other below average defenders like Chuck, Dirk, and Harden.

[lessthanjake]

Yeah I recall Nash always being among the league leaders in drawing charges. He wasn’t a low IQ player defensively. He just had physical limitations. The only non-physical thing is that he could overhelp on doubles sometimes (which was also mentioned in the above post—which I think was a great analysis).

And the point about the lineups is key. I think it’s a fair point to say he had some offensively slanted teams, but the flip side of that is that they were slanted away from defense. In the 2005-2006 season, when the Suns got a legitimate solid defensive center in Kurt Thomas, they actually played Spurs-level defense with Thomas on the floor (without much of any offensive drop either, I should note).

[kcktiny]

I think it’s more a question of how much individual defense matters (especially for guards)

What do you mean? Defense counts at every position.

Even if we grade out Nash as a poor defender, does poor defense from an individual guard have a big enough effect on the defense to cancel out those extra points?

I sometimes think overstating Nash's defensive weaknesses comes across as disingenuous.

Poor defense never helps. And poor defense takes away from a player's overall contribution to winning. Saying Nash was a better overall PG than say John Stockton is as disingenuous as it gets. You could debate all day who was the better player on offense - it's close - but Stockton was clearly the far better defender and thus the far better overall PG. Same for Chris Paul.

Others like Payton, Gus, etc are already iffy, but, I'm sorry -- that's straight up laughable.

Yes. When you do not understand how defense impacts winning that's easy to conclude.

Lever is a great pickpocket,

Yes he was. And a great defender too for a PG.

but he could not score

Lever scored 18+ pts/g in a season 4 times. Nash just twice, despite playing 18 years in the league . Are you going around saying Nash couldn't score either?

he never led a good offense... wasn't half the creator Nash was

Once again you quote offense only. How about defense? Try comparing Nash to Lever defensively. This thread is not just about offensive ranking.

Billups is pretty strictly a worse Nash that happened to win a ring.

Oh I get it. Nash never won a championship, but that's OK. Billups did, but he just "happened" to.

Do you know why Billups/Detroit won a title in 03-04? They ranked just 18th in the league as a team in offensive efficiency that year, but had the league's 2nd best average per game point differential because they had the league's 2nd best defense. Billups was one of the league's best defensive PGs that was quite good on offense.

Perhaps if you understood how defense impacts winning.

Cheeks is a good PG that happened to be the 4th/5th best player on some great teams

A "good" PG? You do realize Cheeks is in the HOF do you not? Despite never scoring even 16 pts/g in a season and only twice scoring more than 14 pts/g. Never lead the league in assists, most seasons wasn't even close.

But he was likely the best defensive PG in the league in the early to mid-80s, and was a key reason the 76ers were a top defensive team from the late 70's to mid 80s.

Mutombo is an offensive liability. I'm taking Rik Smits over him, all day.

This pretty much clarifies you do not understand how defense impacts winning.

Did someone just compare 2 time MVP Nash to Mo Cheeks, Fat Lever and Billups?

No comparison. Peak Nash was not the PG those 3 were in their peaks.

Relative to other all-time greats, Nash is amongst the least impactful defensively.

Let's not even consider all-time greats. How about just all-NBA 1st team PGs? Going back to say the late 70s how about naming all the all-NBA 1st team PGs you think were worse defenders than Nash? This should be interesting.

But those same rosters exacerbated his defensive weaknesses.

Oh I get it. Nash was a poor defender because of his teammates.

Well, was he then a great offensive player because of his teammates? And if he did not have those teammates was he then not a great offensive player and should not get the credit for it?

You want us to believe his poor defense wasn't because of him, yet want us to believe his great offense was because of him?

[lessthanjake]

I think it’s more a question of how much individual defense matters (especially for guards)

What do you mean? Defense counts at every position.

I don’t think it’s remotely controversial to suggest that defense matters more at the center position than at the guard position. And there’s very good reason for that—centers (and big men in general) are simply part of the play on defense substantially more than guards are, because they not only guard their own man but also are very frequently playing help defense on other peoples’ man at the rim. Having a bad defender at center is a bigger deal than having a bad defender at guard (and vice versa).

Even if we grade out Nash as a poor defender, does poor defense from an individual guard have a big enough effect on the defense to cancel out those extra points?

I sometimes think overstating Nash's defensive weaknesses comes across as disingenuous.

Poor defense never helps. And poor defense takes away from a player's overall contribution to winning. Saying Nash was a better overall PG than say John Stockton is as disingenuous as it gets. You could debate all day who was the better player on offense - it's close - but Stockton was clearly the far better defender and thus the far better overall PG. Same for Chris Paul.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. If Steve Nash’s advantage on offense is enough to, for instance, make his team score 2-3% more points while he’s on the floor than Stockton’s or Paul’s (which is roughly true overall by the way with regards to how much more Nash’s teams scored per 100 possessions compared to league average than Paul’s teams did, when they were both on the floor), then Stockton/Paul are only really better than Nash if their individual defense is enough better than Nash’s defense that Nash was causing his defenses to also give up more than 2-3% more points. And that is a bigger swing in defensive impact than you’ll typically see between two guards, so I’m far from sure that’d be the case. Maybe it is, but I’d have to see more data, and at the very least there’s overall impact metrics that suggest that Nash’s overall impact (i.e. including offense and defense) is better than those guys’ (though Stockton grades out really well in those sorts of measures too).

[kcktiny]

I don’t think it’s remotely controversial to suggest that defense matters more at the center position than at the guard position.

No argument here.

Having a bad defender at center is a bigger deal than having a bad defender at guard

Again you seem to be trying to make excuses for a poor defending PG without understanding the impact of a poor defending PG.

then Stockton/Paul are only really better than Nash if their individual defense is enough better than Nash’s defense that Nash was causing his defenses to also give up more than 2-3% more points.

What you do not seem to appreciate is that a PG that plays major minutes and is an excellent shot defender that also forces turnovers at a high rate has a major impact defensively and helping his team win more games than a poor shot defending PG that forces few turnovers.

From 1992-93 to 1997-98 the Seattle Supersonics averaged 59-60 wins a season, as a team ranked 2nd in the league in offensive efficiency, and 3rd in defensive efficiency. Payton played by far the most minutes on that team over the 6 seasons, lead them in scoring, passing, and was the only Sonic named to the all-defensive 1st team those 6 years (he was named all-defensive 1st team 5 of those 6 seasons, had the 2nd most steals among all players in the league over that time).

Like Nash he did not win a title, but over 6 years lead them in passing and scoring and also lead them defensively.

Nash excelled at just half the game. Payton excelled on both sides of the floor.

Nash's first 6 years at Phoenix the Suns as a team ranked 1st in the league in offensive efficiency, but just 21st in defensive efficiency. Nash played by far the most minutes on the team over the 6 seasons, was 2nd on the team in points, and was THE key reason why the team was so poor defensively - even with really good defenders like Marion and Raja Bell on the team for 4 of those 6 seasons.

at the very least there’s overall impact metrics that suggest that Nash’s overall impact (i.e. including offense and defense) is better than those guys’

You mean those impact metrics that ranked Nash over Jordan? Laugh test again.

Try to evaluate defense like you seem to have no problem doing for offense.

[migya]

at the very least there’s overall impact metrics that suggest that Nash’s overall impact (i.e. including offense and defense) is better than those guys’

You mean those impact metrics that ranked Nash over Jordan? Laugh test again.

Try to evaluate defense like you seem to have no problem doing for offense.

There lies a big problem with some these impact metrics that some seem to live and die on. Some players rate higher than players who were clearly Bette than them.

[lessthanjake]

then Stockton/Paul are only really better than Nash if their individual defense is enough better than Nash’s defense that Nash was causing his defenses to also give up more than 2-3% more points.

What you do not seem to appreciate is that a PG that plays major minutes and is an excellent shot defender that also forces turnovers at a high rate has a major impact defensively and helping his team win more games than a poor shot defending PG that forces few turnovers.

From 1992-93 to 1997-98 the Seattle Supersonics averaged 59-60 wins a season, as a team ranked 2nd in the league in offensive efficiency, and 3rd in defensive efficiency. Payton played by far the most minutes on that team over the 6 seasons, lead them in scoring, passing, and was the only Sonic named to the all-defensive 1st team those 6 years (he was named all-defensive 1st team 5 of those 6 seasons, had the 2nd most steals among all players in the league over that time).

Like Nash he did not win a title, but over 6 years lead them in passing and scoring and also lead them defensively.

Nash excelled at just half the game. Payton excelled on both sides of the floor.

The fact is that point guards don’t typically have all that much impact on defensive efficiency either way. It’s not a super high impact defensive position. You use Payton as an example, as if he was the only reason those Seattle defenses were really good, but the reality is that the on-off numbers we have from the end of that time period you identified indicate that that’s not really the case. Indeed, in the 1996-1997 season, the Sonics were the 6th ranked defense, and they would’ve still been the 6th ranked defense based on their defensive efficiency in the non-Payton minutes. And in the 1997-1998 season, the Sonics were the 10th ranked defense, and they would’ve been the 14th ranked defense based on their defensive efficiency in the non-Payton minutes. This is not a strong indication that Gary Payton was the cause of their good defenses, and is actually an indication of my point that point guards’ defensive impact usually isn’t very big—even when it’s a defender as good as Gary Payton!

Nash's first 6 years at Phoenix the Suns as a team ranked 1st in the league in offensive efficiency, but just 21st in defensive efficiency. Nash played by far the most minutes on the team over the 6 seasons, was 2nd on the team in points, and was THE key reason why the team was so poor defensively - even with really good defenders like Marion and Raja Bell on the team for 4 of those 6 seasons.

Was he the key reason the team was poor defensively, though? Did you watch those Suns? Because I did, and I really don’t think you’re right. Their biggest issue defensively was rebounding and lack of forcing turnovers—both of which they often ranked near the very bottom of the league in. On the rebounding front, I think we can agree that that’s not really on the PG (nor was the team worse at defensive rebounding rate on average with him on the court). And you might try to suggest the lack of forced turnovers is his fault, but there’s not much of a case for that really, since the Suns often actually forced a lot of turnovers with Nash on the floor, but couldn’t get any when he wasn’t on (which definitely makes sense when you realize Nash drew a ton of charges). For instance, in the 2004-2005 season, the Suns were 28th in the league in opponent turnover rate, but when Nash was on the floor they forced turnovers at a rate that would’ve been 5th in the league. In the 2005-2006 season, the Suns were 23rd in the league in opponent turnover rate, but when Nash was on the floor they forced turnovers at a rate that would’ve been 2nd in the league.

More importantly, overall, what you’ll find is that the Suns’s defensive efficiency with Nash on the floor in those years was very similar to what it was with him off the floor. Overall, in Nash’s Suns years, the team averaged giving up about 0.2 more points per possession with Nash on the floor than off the floor, and the numbers weren’t very far apart in any year. It’s hard to see how a guy with basically no defensive on-off impact either way was somehow “THE key reason why the team was so poor defensively.” The reality is that he was a relatively weak defender, but not awful (since he was rarely out to lunch mentally), and the impact of PG defense isn’t all that high, which means that the overall impact of him defensively ended up basically being indistinguishable from zero.

The reality is that, to the extent there was a “key reason” why the team was subpar defensively, it was Amare—who was poor defensively, not a great rebounder, and didn’t provide much rim protection. He’d go on to be poor defensively for later teams too. It’s worth noting that the year Amare went down with injury, the Suns acquired an actually solid defensive center (Kurt Thomas), and when Kurt Thomas was on the floor that season, the Suns’ defensive efficiency was so good it would’ve ranked 2nd in the NBA behind only the Spurs. Was a shame for them that Kurt Thomas got a stress fracture and missed the playoffs. They had Kurt Thomas as Amare’s backup the next year, and when Amare was on the floor, the Suns’ defensive efficiency was like the 19th ranked team in the league, while when Thomas was on the floor the Suns’ defensive efficiency was like the 6th ranked team in the league. The “key reason” the team was subpar defensively was bad defense at the center position, and we know this because they were actually a very good defensive team when they had a solid defensive center playing.

at the very least there’s overall impact metrics that suggest that Nash’s overall impact (i.e. including offense and defense) is better than those guys’

You mean those impact metrics that ranked Nash over Jordan? Laugh test again.

Try to evaluate defense like you seem to have no problem doing for offense.

It’s not like the metric in question ranks Jordan low—he’s 4th all time in WOWY rating (as well as 9th in AuPM), so you’re really just complaining about Nash being ranked highly—which just amounts to you refusing to believe data you don’t like on the issue being discussed. And is it really that implausible that Steve Nash might’ve actually had more impact on his team winning regular season games than MJ did? Nash joined a 29-win team and they immediately won 62 games and then still won 54 games when his second star was out all year and they’d let the third best player go in free agency. At age 37, he also managed to go .500 (and actually above that in the games he played) and have the league’s 9th ranked offense with a team in which Marcin Gortat and Jared Dudley were his two main scoring options. Meanwhile, Jordan’s team won 55 games without him. Obviously, Jordan was an incredible ceiling raiser and playoff performer because he took that team and made it a 6-time title winner. But if we’re just talking about regular season impact on team results, it doesn’t strike me as remotely implausible that Steve Nash would come out above Jordan. Nash won two MVPs (and almost a third) primarily on the basis of having a manifestly enormous impact on his team’s results! And we do actually have play-by-play impact data for MJ’s last two Bulls seasons, and his on-off was +7.3 in those years—which is really good, but is below Nash’s +10.8 with the Suns. Jordan is a good example of it perhaps being helpful to contextualize impact metrics a bit when teams are really good or really bad (something I’ve written about recently in another thread), because it is harder to get a massive on-off number on an incredibly good team (and vice versa). It’s hard to blow impact metrics out of the water when you’re on a team that can win 55 games without you—there’s only so much better you can make them. But I don’t think this is the ‘gotcha’ on impact metrics as a whole that you think it is—it’s just a contextual nuance that will occasionally be relevant to consider.

[No-more-rings]

Well let me put it this way, I don’t think he has a reasonable case over these names.

Jordan
Lebron
Kareem
Shaq
Duncan
Wilt
Hakeem
Russell
Bird
Magic
Oscar
Kobe
West
Garnett
Dirk
Malone
Curry
Durant
Dr J

So I guess you can squeeze him into the top 20 just barely but remember Giannis and Jokic are quickly closing in on that range imo and honestly putting him over Cp3, Wade, Drob or Moses is probably a tough sell as well.

[Moonbeam]

A range of metrics I’m developing have him in the 30-60 range. I think I’d have him toward the top of that range. I could see a case for him in the 20s, but probably not in the top 20. I agree he’s got a large possible range, and I look forward to reading about him in the Top 100 project.

[migya]

Well let me put it this way, I don’t think he has a reasonable case over these names.

Jordan
Lebron
Kareem
Shaq
Duncan
Wilt
Hakeem
Russell
Bird
Magic
Oscar
Kobe
West
Garnett
Dirk
Malone
Curry
Durant
Dr J

So I guess you can squeeze him into the top 20 just barely but remember Giannis and Jokic are quickly closing in on that range imo and honestly putting him over Cp3, Wade, Drob or Moses is probably a tough sell as well.

Barkley also

[lessthanjake]

Well let me put it this way, I don’t think he has a reasonable case over these names.

Jordan
Lebron
Kareem
Shaq
Duncan
Wilt
Hakeem
Russell
Bird
Magic
Oscar
Kobe
West
Garnett
Dirk
Malone
Curry
Durant
Dr J

So I guess you can squeeze him into the top 20 just barely but remember Giannis and Jokic are quickly closing in on that range imo and honestly putting him over Cp3, Wade, Drob or Moses is probably a tough sell as well.

I don’t put him above any of those players in that list myself. But there’s names in there that he could be above if you mostly care about impact metrics and don’t care about winning titles and don’t put a lot of value on extreme longevity in terms of prime. And would that be a facially unreasonable approach that you think is unreasonable in general rather than just because of the result it’d spit out here?

[No-more-rings]

Well let me put it this way, I don’t think he has a reasonable case over these names.

Jordan
Lebron
Kareem
Shaq
Duncan
Wilt
Hakeem
Russell
Bird
Magic
Oscar
Kobe
West
Garnett
Dirk
Malone
Curry
Durant
Dr J

So I guess you can squeeze him into the top 20 just barely but remember Giannis and Jokic are quickly closing in on that range imo and honestly putting him over Cp3, Wade, Drob or Moses is probably a tough sell as well.

I don’t put him above any of those players in that list myself. But there’s names in there that he could be above if you mostly care about impact metrics and don’t care about winning titles and don’t put a lot of value on extreme longevity in terms of prime. And would that be a facially unreasonable approach that you think is unreasonable in general rather than just because of the result it’d spit out here?

Well look impact metrics are obviously important and should be a decent chunk of the pie when ranking players but it’s not everything. If someone “doesn’t care about winning titles”, in their criteria no that’s not reasonable to me as that’s the goal of all players and teams. When pinning Nash against the names above, he has some issues.

1) Relatively shorter prime compared to them. I know some will try and put his prime as like 2002-2011 or whatever, but Nash was nowhere near a superstar pre 2005 and likely had his last year as one in 2010.

2. Defense. Blah blah. Don’t really care to get into how much his defense hurt, but naturally it’s going to hurt him compared to the others even to someone like Curry.

3. Nash didn’t win a title, and didn’t even come that close. Yeah it’s a team game, and he had Amare as his pf/center on defense yeah I know i’ve heard that endless times, but facts are still facts. You don’t get to be crowned the way others are when you didn’t actually win one let alone multiple.

And btw, when we start talking Nash and impact metrics, he doesn’t even stand out among superstar peers when talking about O and D combined. On offense he does, but overall he’s comparable at best to guys like Dirk, Kobe, Wade, Durant etc. Well Durant’s prime didn’t overlap but still.

[AEnigma]

3. Nash didn’t win a title, and didn’t even come that close. Yeah it’s a team game, and he had Amare as his pf/center on defense yeah I know i’ve heard that endless times, but facts are still facts. You don’t get to be crowned the way others are when you didn’t actually win one let alone multiple.

I do not think you are being unfair with your list but I will push back on this a bit.

2003: conference finals against champion with superstar teammate injured; would be heavy favourite over next opponent

2005: conference finals against champion with fourth best teammate injured

2006: conference finals against narrow runner-up with third best teammate and replacement injured

2007: conference semifinals against champion with key roster pieces suspended in a pivotal game because they stood up off a bench in response to a characteristically vicious hip-check; would be heavy favourite over next two opponents

2010: conference finals against champion

That to me qualifies as being “coming close” to a title in its summation, even if not to same extent as can be said for someone like Karl Malone above him.

I guess my question is would you have Oscar securely above him if he is injured in the Finals and the Bucks win anyway? Because that is mostly how I see Nash: not as much of an era standout, and not as durable, but similar in their historical place as the best offensive guard of their generation on a team that is never good enough to break through… until Oscar is traded to a conference finalist with the best player in the world.

[lessthanjake]

Well let me put it this way, I don’t think he has a reasonable case over these names.

Jordan
Lebron
Kareem
Shaq
Duncan
Wilt
Hakeem
Russell
Bird
Magic
Oscar
Kobe
West
Garnett
Dirk
Malone
Curry
Durant
Dr J

So I guess you can squeeze him into the top 20 just barely but remember Giannis and Jokic are quickly closing in on that range imo and honestly putting him over Cp3, Wade, Drob or Moses is probably a tough sell as well.

I don’t put him above any of those players in that list myself. But there’s names in there that he could be above if you mostly care about impact metrics and don’t care about winning titles and don’t put a lot of value on extreme longevity in terms of prime. And would that be a facially unreasonable approach that you think is unreasonable in general rather than just because of the result it’d spit out here?

Well look impact metrics are obviously important and should be a decent chunk of the pie when ranking players but it’s not everything. If someone “doesn’t care about winning titles”, in their criteria no that’s not reasonable to me as that’s the goal of all players and teams. When pinning Nash against the names above, he has some issues.

1) Relatively shorter prime compared to them. I know some will try and put his prime as like 2002-2011 or whatever, but Nash was nowhere near a superstar pre 2005 and likely had his last year as one in 2010.

2. Defense. Blah blah. Don’t really care to get into how much his defense hurt, but naturally it’s going to hurt him compared to the others even to someone like Curry.

3. Nash didn’t win a title, and didn’t even come that close. Yeah it’s a team game, and he had Amare as his pf/center on defense yeah I know i’ve heard that endless times, but facts are still facts. You don’t get to be crowned the way others are when you didn’t actually win one let alone multiple.

And btw, when we start talking Nash and impact metrics, he doesn’t even stand out among superstar peers when talking about O and D combined. On offense he does, but overall he’s comparable at best to guys like Dirk, Kobe, Wade, Durant etc. Well Durant’s prime didn’t overlap but still.

I mean, ultimately, I don’t actually disagree with you, because, as I said, I personally would rate Steve Nash below all of the guys you listed. And my reasons for that aren’t particularly different from stuff you articulated in this post. But we are talking “highest possible ranking” and what I’m saying is I can see an approach to things that actually would have Steve Nash ranked really high. Would you or I agree with that approach? No, it sounds like titles carry significant weight to you, and they do for me too. But I guess I just don’t think it’d be unreasonable to take an approach that doesn’t weigh title winning much at all, given that it’s a team game (and I think it’d be quite reasonable not to blame the Suns’s failure to win a title on Nash’s individual playoff performances). And at that point, I think there’s a reasonable path to a very high ranking for Steve Nash. But, as I’ve said, I also think there’s a reasonable path to a fairly low ranking for Nash as well. I just think his range is very large.

[kcktiny]

The fact is that point guards don’t typically have all that much impact on defensive efficiency either way.

Typically? Correct.

It’s not a super high impact defensive position.

But it can be, just as can any of the 5 positions. A PG that is a very good to excellent shot defender that forces turnovers at a high rate can have just as much impact defensively in terms of more wins for his team as can a C that is a very good to excellent shot defender/shot blocker.

You use Payton as an example, as if he was the only reason those Seattle defenses were really good

I never said this. You are putting words into the mouths of others to try to validate your opinion.

the reality is that the on-off numbers we have from the end of that time period you identified indicate that that’s not really the case.

Ah ha. Another adherent to on/off data decades after the fact that still to this day does not understand what on/off actually measures.

You are comparing the on/off rating of a single player to the on/off rating of players on other teams, without understanding that the rating only measures something particular to the team the player was on.

In other words the rating is very suspect to who the player's primary backup was. You by chance know who Gary Payton's primary backup was all those 6 seasons? It was a PG by the name of Nate McMillan, the Sonics starting PG before Payton got there.

McMillan was also an excellent defensive PG (he was all-defensive 2nd team in 93-94 and 94-95, with Payton on the 1st team) but that also grabbed steals at very high rates. Those 6 seasons he averaged 3.5 ST/40min - that's outrageously high for such an extended period of time. How high? No player since - in the last 25 years - averaged even 3.5 ST/40min in a single season, let alone over 6 seasons.

Even that last season, 97-98, Payton's primary backup was PG Greg Anthony, another good defensive PG that had a high steal rate.

Kinda hard don't you think to have great defensive on/off numbers when your primary backup was almost as good defensively as you?

This is not a strong indication that Gary Payton was the cause of their good defenses, and is actually an indication of my point that point guards’ defensive impact usually isn’t very big—even when it’s a defender as good as Gary Payton!

Had you watched the Sonics in the 90s you would have known this. Evidently you did not. Payton and McMillan were two of the very best defensive PGs during that time.

So much for your on/off data being of value here.

Was he the key reason the team was poor defensively, though?

Yes he was. Nash played by far the most minutes on the team those 6 seasons, 2884 minutes more than any other player. That's like another full season more of a poor defender on the floor for 34-35 min/g.

Did you watch those Suns?

Yes I did. Plus the Sonics the decade before.

Because I did, and I really don’t think you’re right.

Surprise. Coming from an on/off adherent.

Their biggest issue defensively was rebounding and lack of forcing turnovers

And you might try to suggest the lack of forced turnovers is his fault, but there’s not much of a case for that really, since the Suns often actually forced a lot of turnovers with Nash on the floor, but couldn’t get any when he wasn’t on

What kind of complete nonsense is this? What does that have to do with Nash himself? Are you now giving credit to Nash for his teammates abilities to force turnovers?

Before you tried to say Nash's defense wasn't so bad because the rest of the team was bad defensively. Now you are trying to say their ability to force turnovers is because if him?

My lord you have every excuse in the book for this guy for his poor defense don't you?

And saying he drew a ton of charges doesn't cut it. The PGs that grabbed the most steals grabbed 3-4 times as many as the PGs that drew the most charges. Nice try though.

Nash played by far the most minutes of any player on the Suns these 6 seasons - he was on the floor more time than any other Suns player - and had one of the absolute lowest/worst steal rates among all starting PGs in the league (just 0.9 ST/40min). That's a player on the floor the most doing pretty much the least on defense - poor shot defense and forcing few turnovers.

but when Nash was on the floor they forced turnovers at a rate that would’ve been 2nd in the league

Again - what does this have to do with Nash himself? Nothing.

It’s hard to see how a guy with basically no defensive on-off impact either way was somehow “THE key reason why the team was so poor defensively.”

Poor shot defense, few turnovers forced, on the floor far more than any others Suns player. What are you missing?

And I suggest you read up on the deficiencies of on/off data. Especially in a single year sampling.

Amare—who was poor defensively

Yes he was. Which is why once Marion and Raja Bell were gone in 08-09 and 09-10 and Nash and Stoudemire played 1/4 of the team's total minutes played they were the 8th worst team defensively in the league.

He’d go on to be poor defensively for later teams too.

Just like Nash. In 10-11 and 11-12 the Suns were the 9th worst team in the league defensively. Nash played the most minutes for them over those 2 years. What's your excuse for Nash these seasons?

you’re really just complaining about Nash being ranked highly—which just amounts to you refusing to believe data you don’t like on the issue being discussed

As opposed to you quoting on/off data as if it is NBA gospel and the standard for player evaluation when a simple google search shows you just how noisy and unreliable the data is in a one year sampling such that the developers of it have to lump multiple seasons of data together just to get what they feel is a reliable number?

And yes I seriously question any data that also purports to say Derek Fischer and Mike Bibby had more "impact" than Walt Frazier.

You are blindly following concocted numbers without watching the evidence yourself (Payton/McMillan). Like another on/off adherent that wrote this in the "Talent vs. specialty" thread concerning Alvin Robertson, one of the great defensive guards in league history:

Back then people loved giving DPOY to guards and smaller defenders who weren't as impactful as prolific shotblockers. Alvin's award is the purest example of looking at raw stats beyond anything else - because Robertson played on horrible Spurs team that were among the worst defensive teams in the league and he never showed that he had quantitative impact on defense outside of huge steals numbers.

This individual also quoted on/off data for his opinion, just as you are for yours. A flawed concocted calculation decades after the fact that some now purport as gospel that did not in fact watch these players when they did indeed actually play.

[eminence]

I'll report back in a ~2 months when the first vote for him comes in for the top 100 project.

[lessthanjake]

The fact is that point guards don’t typically have all that much impact on defensive efficiency either way.

Typically? Correct.

It’s not a super high impact defensive position.

But it can be, just as can any of the 5 positions. A PG that is a very good to excellent shot defender that forces turnovers at a high rate can have just as much impact defensively in terms of more wins for his team as can a C that is a very good to excellent shot defender/shot blocker.

You use Payton as an example, as if he was the only reason those Seattle defenses were really good

I never said this. You are putting words into the mouths of others to try to validate your opinion.

the reality is that the on-off numbers we have from the end of that time period you identified indicate that that’s not really the case.

Ah ha. Another adherent to on/off data decades after the fact that still to this day does not understand what on/off actually measures.

You are comparing the on/off rating of a single player to the on/off rating of players on other teams, without understanding that the rating only measures something particular to the team the player was on.

In other words the rating is very suspect to who the player's primary backup was. You by chance know who Gary Payton's primary backup was all those 6 seasons? It was a PG by the name of Nate McMillan, the Sonics starting PG before Payton got there.

McMillan was also an excellent defensive PG (he was all-defensive 2nd team in 93-94 and 94-95, with Payton on the 1st team) but that also grabbed steals at very high rates. Those 6 seasons he averaged 3.5 ST/40min - that's outrageously high for such an extended period of time. How high? No player since - in the last 25 years - averaged even 3.5 ST/40min in a single season, let alone over 6 seasons.

Even that last season, 97-98, Payton's primary backup was PG Greg Anthony, another good defensive PG that had a high steal rate.

Kinda hard don't you think to have great defensive on/off numbers when your primary backup was almost as good defensively as you?

This is not a strong indication that Gary Payton was the cause of their good defenses, and is actually an indication of my point that point guards’ defensive impact usually isn’t very big—even when it’s a defender as good as Gary Payton!

Had you watched the Sonics in the 90s you would have known this. Evidently you did not. Payton and McMillan were two of the very best defensive PGs during that time.

So much for your on/off data being of value here.

Was he the key reason the team was poor defensively, though?

Yes he was. Nash played by far the most minutes on the team those 6 seasons, 2884 minutes more than any other player. That's like another full season more of a poor defender on the floor for 34-35 min/g.

Did you watch those Suns?

Yes I did. Plus the Sonics the decade before.

Because I did, and I really don’t think you’re right.

Surprise. Coming from an on/off adherent.

Their biggest issue defensively was rebounding and lack of forcing turnovers

And you might try to suggest the lack of forced turnovers is his fault, but there’s not much of a case for that really, since the Suns often actually forced a lot of turnovers with Nash on the floor, but couldn’t get any when he wasn’t on

What kind of complete nonsense is this? What does that have to do with Nash himself? Are you now giving credit to Nash for his teammates abilities to force turnovers?

Before you tried to say Nash's defense wasn't so bad because the rest of the team was bad defensively. Now you are trying to say their ability to force turnovers is because if him?

My lord you have every excuse in the book for this guy for his poor defense don't you?

And saying he drew a ton of charges doesn't cut it. The PGs that grabbed the most steals grabbed 3-4 times as many as the PGs that drew the most charges. Nice try though.

Nash played by far the most minutes of any player on the Suns these 6 seasons - he was on the floor more time than any other Suns player - and had one of the absolute lowest/worst steal rates among all starting PGs in the league (just 0.9 ST/40min). That's a player on the floor the most doing pretty much the least on defense - poor shot defense and forcing few turnovers.

but when Nash was on the floor they forced turnovers at a rate that would’ve been 2nd in the league

Again - what does this have to do with Nash himself? Nothing.

It’s hard to see how a guy with basically no defensive on-off impact either way was somehow “THE key reason why the team was so poor defensively.”

Poor shot defense, few turnovers forced, on the floor far more than any others Suns player. What are you missing?

And I suggest you read up on the deficiencies of on/off data. Especially in a single year sampling.

Amare—who was poor defensively

Yes he was. Which is why once Marion and Raja Bell were gone in 08-09 and 09-10 and Nash and Stoudemire played 1/4 of the team's total minutes played they were the 8th worst team defensively in the league.

He’d go on to be poor defensively for later teams too.

Just like Nash. In 10-11 and 11-12 the Suns were the 9th worst team in the league defensively. Nash played the most minutes for them over those 2 years. What's your excuse for Nash these seasons?

you’re really just complaining about Nash being ranked highly—which just amounts to you refusing to believe data you don’t like on the issue being discussed

As opposed to you quoting on/off data as if it is NBA gospel and the standard for player evaluation when a simple google search shows you just how noisy and unreliable the data is in a one year sampling such that the developers of it have to lump multiple seasons of data together just to get what they feel is a reliable number?

And yes I seriously question any data that also purports to say Derek Fischer and Mike Bibby had more "impact" than Walt Frazier.

You are blindly following concocted numbers without watching the evidence yourself (Payton/McMillan). Like another on/off adherent that wrote this in the "Talent vs. specialty" thread concerning Alvin Robertson, one of the great defensive guards in league history:

Back then people loved giving DPOY to guards and smaller defenders who weren't as impactful as prolific shotblockers. Alvin's award is the purest example of looking at raw stats beyond anything else - because Robertson played on horrible Spurs team that were among the worst defensive teams in the league and he never showed that he had quantitative impact on defense outside of huge steals numbers.

This individual also quoted on/off data for his opinion, just as you are for yours. A flawed concocted calculation decades after the fact that some now purport as gospel that did not in fact watch these players when they did indeed actually play.

You provide no new info here about the impact of Nash’s defense. You seem to just be saying he played a lot of minutes and the defense wasn’t good so he must be the key reason. Even though they weren’t any better defensively with him off the court. Even though the elements of defensive efficiency they were most deficient at were not worse (and in many cases were actually better) with him on the court. Even though they had another star who had worse defensive on/off numbers than him and who got injured and when replaced by a quality defender the Suns became an elite defense when that replacement played. Even though Nash plays a position that is almost never the key reason a defense is bad or good. You seem to have started at your conclusion and not really developed anything further than that beyond saying that you don’t like any of the substantial evidence that goes against your conclusion. What is your reasoning for why you think Nash was the key reason the defense was bad? Is it literally just that Nash played a lot of minutes and the defense wasn't good? Because thats manifestly insufficient to prove your point. But I don’t see you saying anything more than that.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh it's not crazy to think the Bucks might have won it all without Oscar. They were a 56 team without him, and Kareem improved after his rookie year. I imagine many stars, Nash included, could have ridden Kareem's coat tails to a ring that year.