Steve Nash as a historic offensive force

[MMyhre]

I think most people on the PC board already know this. I very rarely hear an "offensive GOAT" discussion without Steve Nash getting an honourable mention.

Put this on the General Board and you might get more pushback along with less understanding of Nash's impact.

I have a hard time understanding someone watching a lot of Suns Nash, or looking at the statistical analysis, and not thinking Nash is one of the best offensive players we've ever seen. It's not even that complicated: there has simply never been a more potent blend of shooting threat and playmaking power. (Or I used to be able to say that confidently until Jokic!)

I find it tiresome how disrespected he is by certain NBA stars (Shaq....... u didn't deserve MVP, the growth of Wade was a huge factor to the increased wins as well, get over it old man) and them sounding so offputting when his name gets mentioned. Seems to be some macho aspect to it, as big white superstars like Bird and Doncic are clearly spoken about with more respect. Smaller, not mainstream athletic (running speed and jumping) and less controversial Steve Nash just doesn't cut it. I guess some of it is Shaq's influence, looking too much into rings, but still. Wish someone with a SLIVER of thought process in their head would speak up to these NBA guys about the abilities of Steve Nash someday....

[Aeternus]

Seems to be some macho aspect to it, as big white superstars like Bird and Doncic are clearly spoken about with more respect. Smaller, not mainstream athletic (running speed and jumping) and less controversial Steve Nash just doesn't cut it.

It seems to me like the literal only thing that matters in this regard is ppg.
Bird and Luka are great scorers and they were loved from the beginning.
Jokic got a lot of hate for not scoring aggressively enough and needed this year's ring to be acknowledged by most people.
Nash's offensive prowess was never accepted because of his low scoring, and always got hated on for it.
It's really weird how people can accept Kidd's and CP's playmaking impact but not Nash's.

[penbeast0]

Seems to be some macho aspect to it, as big white superstars like Bird and Doncic are clearly spoken about with more respect. Smaller, not mainstream athletic (running speed and jumping) and less controversial Steve Nash just doesn't cut it.

It seems to me like the literal only thing that matters in this regard is ppg.
Bird and Luka are great scorers and they were loved from the beginning.
Jokic got a lot of hate for not scoring aggressively enough and needed this year's ring to be acknowledged by most people.
Nash's offensive prowess was never accepted because of his low scoring, and always got hated on for it.
It's really weird how people can accept Kidd's and CP's playmaking impact but not Nash's.

I've never heard anyone doubt Nash's playmaking impact relative to Kidd's. Look at how they affected the players around them and you will see Nash having a major impact on guys like Marion while Kidd's main impact was defensive.

Nash's scoring, if anything, gets overrated here. Look at the discussions between Nash and Stockton and you will see people talking about it like the difference was massive when it was about 1 point a game on similar efficiency. (See the MMyhre quote above too.) Many people do rate players first and foremost on volume scoring then everything else and that underrates the great pass first guards like Nash and Stockton.

Where I see major doubts on this board are Nash's ability not to be hunted defensively and his inability to win titles. At least here, though, I don't think Nash gets underrated, particularly for his playmaking.

[Aeternus]

I've never heard anyone doubt Nash's playmaking impact relative to Kidd's. Look at how they affected the players around them and you will see Nash having a major impact on guys like Marion while Kidd's main impact was defensive.

Nash's scoring, if anything, gets overrated. Look at the discussions between Nash and Stockton and you will see people talking about it like the difference was massive when it was about 1 point a game on similar efficiency. (See the MMhre quote above too.) People do rate players first and foremost on volume scoring then everything else and that underrates the great pass first guards like Nash and Stockton.

Where I see major doubts on this board are Nash's ability not to be hunted defensively and his inability to win titles. At least here, though, I don't think Nash gets underrated, particularly for his playmaking.

I've seen more people put Kidd's playmaking over Nash's than viceversa by far. In fact, the player comparison board on realgm is pretty much the only place I've seen where Nash > Kidd as a playmaker is not a controversial opinion. The general board will definitely take exception.

I feel like the scoring difference between Nash and Stockton is greater than you're implying, given that Stockton was in the 14-17ppg range vs Nash's 18-20, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. My point was exactly what you said in the bolded bit so we agree.

[penbeast0]

Stockton career 13.1; Nash 14.3 ppg
Stockton peak 17.2 (3 seasons over 17), Nash 18.8 ppg (only 2 seasons over 18)

I think your memory overrates Nash's scoring volume.

[lessthanjake]

Stockton career 13.1; Nash 14.3 ppg
Stockton peak 17.2 (3 seasons over 17), Nash 18.8 ppg (only 2 seasons over 18)

I think your memory overrates Nash's scoring volume.

I think where this memory comes from for some people is that Nash *was* actually a 20 points per game scorer in the playoffs while he was on the Suns. And that was in a low-scoring era. He actually was a good playoff scorer there for a while—including some pretty amazing scoring performances. Most prominently, in 2005 when the Mavs chose to dare Nash to beat them, he scored over 40 points a game on 72% TS% in the last three games of the series. I think people remember stuff like that and forget that he wasn’t really doing stuff like that in the regular season. More generally, overall for their careers, Nash did score about 25% more per 100 possessions in the playoffs than Stockton did.

[penbeast0]

He was more of a playoff scorer, that is true, raising his career average to 17.3 ppg with two years (05 and 06) over 20 ppg. Strangely enough despite his rep, Stockton improved his scoring in the playoffs though to a lesser degree (13.4 career, peak of 27.3 in a 3 game series in 89, but also 19.5 in 88, 18.2 in 91). Also more games late career where he was scoring less. It's a real difference, just not night and day.