Grandpa Waiters wrote:therealbig3 wrote:Nash's greatness doesn't come from his box score numbers, so all the talk of his numbers being inflated by a system is so irrelevant. 18/11 aren't all time great numbers, so that's not what people fawn over. His greatness comes from his impact, as shown by +/- and on/off. Yes, people are dubious of those stats, and they prefer to use team statistics, so the Nash supporters point to ORating. Nobody ever has led the kind of offenses that Nash did in Phoenix during his prime. And these weren't gimmicks. They were dominant in the playoffs too. The Jazz offense either got better or didn't miss a beat as Stockton's role was reduced. How is that a PG that's better than the guy who spearheaded the greatest offenses of all time? And you want to talk about inflated numbers? Yeah, the fast-paced Jazz offense, heavily focused on the PnR, with Karl Malone as the finisher, in a system that's also KNOWN to benefit PGs apparently didn't inflate Stockton's numbers the way MDA's system inflated Nash's...lol, get real.
As for Garnett...I'm pretty tired of debating with people about him. His impact is clear, and it always comes back to the same useless and shallow point of discussion: his teams didn't get out of the 1st round for 7 straight years. Ok? Not only is it a team sport (and it's a defense that can be used for other players all the time, just not for Garnett for some reason), but people will overlook his supporting cast relative to other stars, and then they'll also overlook the fact that the Timberwolves were in a STACKED Western Conference, and then they'll also overlook that the Timberwolves were still winning 50+ games despite a weak supporting cast and stacked competition. It's a testament to Garnett's greatness that the Wolves even had that much success. And again, looking at the +/- and on/off data, and in his case, historically good box score stats, I don't see the problem with people thinking he's really frikin great.
My problem with Nash and Garnett is not that I don't think they're great, I do. It's that I don't think they're THAT great. Nash never won a thing so people are reduced to citing his offensive rating numbers and such. In all honesty, who cares about offensive ratings when you don't win anything? Would anyone be citing the Pistons defensive prowess twenty years later if Isiah never won anything. Nope. Stockton to me is an obvious choice to me over Nash. Nash was the better shooter but Stockton put up great percentages too. He was as good a passer as Nash if not better. A draw really. Where he kills Nash is on the defensive end. He was tough as nails and the all time leader in steals.
Garnett draws my ire because he couldn't get out of the first round seven straight years. I know people claim teammates, coaching staff, opponents etc but he should've been able to put the team on his back and get them out at least once during that stretch. He never gets the blame but when he finally leads them somewhere in '04 he gets all the credit but again, none of the blame for losing. I also feel that his defensive impact is overstated to offset his offensive shortcomings. My two worthless cents.
Did you intentionally write the same things realbig3 made a point of calling out?
