More overrated: Garnett or Nash

[Grandpa Waiters]

Zeke was a basketball savant, an intangible that cannot be measured. Some guys are just born to win and Isiah was that guy.

EDIT: Let me slightly more professional here: When people see you talk like this, they will not take you seriously. All people? No, there are plenty of fans who think of this as what basketball talk looks like, but for anyone looking to analyze the events in question to understand and explain, you're just directly signally that you not only don't know how to do that, you haven't even reached the point where understand what you don't understand.

Wow. The only guys who ever bait me on these forums are the moderators themselves. Nice.

[Texas Chuck]

The Mavs had to get beter once Kidd came given that they were arguably the worst team in history. They still sucked though and the Mavs ended up feeling they had to trade Kidd because of his stupid ass off court behavior (a recurring them with him).

1. Not arguably

2. I think they traded him because Nellie shares tsherkin's view on pgs, not because of off the court stuff. The whole Toni Braxton deal is way overblown.

[rrravenred]

I find it grimly hilarious that a poster says in a thread 3 years ago that "I feel like this has been done to death on this site"

The more things change...

Sent from my SM-T310 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Doctor MJ]

Zeke was a basketball savant, an intangible that cannot be measured. Some guys are just born to win and Isiah was that guy.

EDIT: Let me slightly more professional here: When people see you talk like this, they will not take you seriously. All people? No, there are plenty of fans who think of this as what basketball talk looks like, but for anyone looking to analyze the events in question to understand and explain, you're just directly signally that you not only don't know how to do that, you haven't even reached the point where understand what you don't understand.

Wow. The only guys who ever bait me on these forums are the moderators themselves. Nice.

That's not baiting, that's constructive criticism. I quite understand why you feel insulted, but that doesn't make what I say any less true.

[Grandpa Waiters]

EDIT: Let me slightly more professional here: When people see you talk like this, they will not take you seriously. All people? No, there are plenty of fans who think of this as what basketball talk looks like, but for anyone looking to analyze the events in question to understand and explain, you're just directly signally that you not only don't know how to do that, you haven't even reached the point where understand what you don't understand.

Wow. The only guys who ever bait me on these forums are the moderators themselves. Nice.

That's not baiting, that's constructive criticism. I quite understand why you feel insulted, but that doesn't make what I say any less true.

Wrong. I was talking about the "that's adorable" comment you already deleted.

[Doctor MJ]

The Mavs had to get beter once Kidd came given that they were arguably the worst team in history. They still sucked though and the Mavs ended up feeling they had to trade Kidd because of his stupid ass off court behavior (a recurring them with him).

1. Not arguably

2. I think they traded him because Nellie shares tsherkin's view on pgs, not because of off the court stuff. The whole Toni Braxton deal is way overblown.

It became worth noting again once it happened again on his next team, albeit in a much more serious manner. Regardless, Kidd got traded away from his first two teams despite having no one on the roster in his league as a talent. We can debate exactly what it says about him, but it says something, and it makes claims of him being a conquering hero for those teams clearly off the mark.

[ElGee]

All these points still boil down to context. One group ignores context. Then they present a bunch of context-free arguments to a group of people who adjust everything with nuance depending on the context. It's two entirely different discussions.

I asked G35 to explain the other side's argument because there is so much misrepresentation that it seems like anti-Nash/KG posters don't understand the argument for these players. To be more specific, just picking posts in the last day from this thread:

It's not about the numbers. It's about winning. Isiah was a winner, at every level. Nash never sniffed the finals. To claim that Nash can't be blamed at all for his teams playoff failures is ridiculous.

I choose Zeke. Like they say, "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE HEART OF A CHAMPION", Advanced stats can't measure that.

KG only pass one time the 1st round as the alpha dog.

What really cracks me up is that Isiah could have kept lighting it up whenever he felt like it, putting up 21-12s every year, kept making 1st team All-NBAs and been an MVP candidate, like he did when he was young, and then never won a championship, and RealGM would think higher of him for that. Subjugating yourself and your talents to what worked best for the team and being an all-time great leader mean nothing here.

-A team "winning" depends on context. Great players can lose. Bad players can win. The evidence on this is up there with the evidence for gravity, not to mention a basic thought experiment locks it up.

-Advanced stats or any stats are about corroboration and need context. They are used because human memories suck. The evidence on this is also up there with the evidence for gravity.

Of course, the last quote is really the most misguided. This poster believes that pro-Nash posters think that Nash putting up big raw box score stats is good and thus why they have him rated highly. This kind of statement is constantly repeated (as realbig3 just pointed out) and it couldn't be further from the mark. Almost every word is the opposite of why people value Steve Nash, Kevin Garnett, or any other non high-scoring, non NBA champion.

[Texas Chuck]

All these points still boil down to context. One group ignores context. Then they present a bunch of context-free arguments to a group of people who adjust everything with nuance depending on the context. It's two entirely different discussions.

I asked G35 to explain the other side's argument because there is so much misrepresentation that it seems like anti-Nash/KG posters don't understand the argument for these players. To be more specific, just picking posts in the last day from this thread:

Seems a tad condescending to make a statement suggesting all people who think less of either Nash or KG must ignore context while those who love them must be using nuance and context.

I could cherry pick some ridiculous pro-Nash and pro-KG posts from this board in an attempt to paint their supporters with a negative broad brush, but to what end? What does that achieve?

I think its possible to have some real criticisms of just about every player ever including the two in this thread and to do so intelligently and using context. Making this a "our group is smarter and looks deeper than their group" is a real turn off. Its also why I have personally refrained from making any real commentary on the heart of this thread.

[Doctor MJ]

Wow. The only guys who ever bait me on these forums are the moderators themselves. Nice.

That's not baiting, that's constructive criticism. I quite understand why you feel insulted, but that doesn't make what I say any less true.

Wrong. I was talking about the "that's adorable" comment you already deleted.

Ah, point taken then. You might have made that clear before.

My apologies for calling you cute. I shouldn't have have commented on your cuddliness, which is why I erased it and replaced it with constructive criticism.

[JordansBulls]

That sounds similar to what's been said about Nash. Its been said Don Nelson did not use Nash properly. After the fact that D'Antoni gave Nash....If Phoenix didnt re-acquire Nash? No, he wouldn't be as overrated as he is.

Here's a What If for you. Say Stat and Diaw don't get a BS suspension. Suns win game 5, and then take the WCF in game 7 at home. They stomp on the overmatched Cavs and win a title.

I think the Jazz may have been able to get them in the next round.

[ElGee]

All these points still boil down to context. One group ignores context. Then they present a bunch of context-free arguments to a group of people who adjust everything with nuance depending on the context. It's two entirely different discussions.

I asked G35 to explain the other side's argument because there is so much misrepresentation that it seems like anti-Nash/KG posters don't understand the argument for these players. To be more specific, just picking posts in the last day from this thread:

Seems a tad condescending to make a statement suggesting all people who think less of either Nash or KG must ignore context while those who love them must be using nuance and context.

I could cherry pick some ridiculous pro-Nash and pro-KG posts from this board in an attempt to paint their supporters with a negative broad brush, but to what end? What does that achieve?

I think its possible to have some real criticisms of just about every player ever including the two in this thread and to do so intelligently and using context. Making this a "our group is smarter and looks deeper than their group" is a real turn off. Its also why I have personally refrained from making any real commentary on the heart of this thread.

You're warping what I'm saying, particularly because I'm not talking about all people who think less of these players. You, my friend, have shoved those words into my mouth, which is OK because I'm hungry.

I have KG rated higher than 99% of this board, yet my point was addressed to a specific ideology. I'm playing along with the "pro/anti" categorization in this thread in hopes of alignment and productivity, and I'm doing this because we all know what we mean and it'll hopefully lead to productivity or enjoyment since this is, IMO, the most bitter debate topic on real gm.

The quotes I provided were to actually supply some examples of the generalization that I made yesterday when G35 felt I called him out. I never called the quotes "ridiculous," they just completely miss the mark and don't indicate the message has been understood. Which means people are deliberately shifting the topic, or they genuinely don't understand why the other side is coming to the conclusion that they do. This is really common in conflict and it's very hard to have resolution if one party doesn't care to understand where the other party is coming from.*

No one ever said "our group is smarter." The "looks deeper" point is a real issue but one that needs no judgement -- some people seem to boast that they don't like to analyze things. So what? It explains why they don't analyze the new information they encounter on this site before they judge it, but that's just insecurity or laziness, not a federal crime.

*Just to provide clarity: It's the difference between saying "KG can't get out of the 1st round -- ergo he can't be as good as [arbitrary level I decree]" and asking, in earnest, "I'm really hung up on KG not getting out of the 1st round -- but I don't understand why it isn't a problem for you??"

I think its possible to have some real criticisms of just about every player ever including the two in this thread and to do so intelligently and using context.

I'm genuinely baffled by this. Have you read the posts on these two players from RPOY, Top 100 or Peaks projects?

[Grandpa Waiters]

Goodbye

[kayess]

I think it'll be a while before KG/Nash defenders can be truly vindicated - we'll have to wait for better stats or something so we can analyze better.

All these points still boil down to context. One group ignores context. Then they present a bunch of context-free arguments to a group of people who adjust everything with nuance depending on the context. It's two entirely different discussions.

I asked G35 to explain the other side's argument because there is so much misrepresentation that it seems like anti-Nash/KG posters don't understand the argument for these players. To be more specific, just picking posts in the last day from this thread:

Seems a tad condescending to make a statement suggesting all people who think less of either Nash or KG must ignore context while those who love them must be using nuance and context.

I could cherry pick some ridiculous pro-Nash and pro-KG posts from this board in an attempt to paint their supporters with a negative broad brush, but to what end? What does that achieve?

I think its possible to have some real criticisms of just about every player ever including the two in this thread and to do so intelligently and using context. Making this a "our group is smarter and looks deeper than their group" is a real turn off. Its also why I have personally refrained from making any real commentary on the heart of this thread.

*Just to provide clarity: It's the difference between saying "KG can't get out of the 1st round -- ergo he can't be as good as [arbitrary level I decree]" and asking, in earnest, "I'm really hung up on KG not getting out of the 1st round -- but I don't understand why it isn't a problem for you??"

I think its possible to have some real criticisms of just about every player ever including the two in this thread and to do so intelligently and using context.

I'm genuinely baffled by this. Have you read the posts on these two players from RPOY, Top 100 or Peaks projects?

ElGee, you've always been in the shortlist for GOAT posters, and this distinction is an exemplification of why it is so. This is EXACTLY what I feel posters, from both sides, miss! the former is bad logic, the latter opens the floor to meaningful discussion!

Pretty much all my "deeper" knowledge about ball is second-hand (from ElGee/drza/mysticbb/Doctor MJ/fatal9/tsherkin/etc. posts, especially on this subject), but here's my shoddy attempt at a summary of the relevant points that always get brought up in this debate:

Note: I'm assuming we've done away with "RINGZZZZ" (teams win games, not individuals!) and the false dichotomy of "eye-test vs. stats!" (you need both!)

Re: Team Success.

The first, and probably most important hurdle to get past, is the thinking that the "stats" people don't care about team success. Wrong; in fact, in a sense, that is all they care about!

Let's say we have a pool of 1000 random teams: player A maximizes his impact (+10) on 999/1000 of them, while player B's (also +10) is maximized on 900. If you're a GM, you take player A every time, right?

But it's not that easy. We see the impact of a player BEFORE we arrive at an approximation of how many teams he will see his impact maximized on. So let's say we see player A on the one team he doesn't maximize his impact on: he's only +5, while player B is a +10 one of the 900 theoretical teams. Do we look at this and say "player B is the better player?"

No, of course not. This is the entire point of using the eye-test and statistics to determine impact, of using context to determine how much circumstances affects the outcome of games, seasons, playoff series, etc. It's why LeBron has answered pretty much every question about him - his ultra ball dominant, "dribble at the top of the key and generate a high percentage look at the basket/open look for my teammate" style gradually evolved to where he is now: someone who doesn't need the ball that much (but can still be the primary ball-handler when necessary) because of an extremely refined offensive game, and having a huge defensive responsibility.

Other players simply aren't fortunate enough to have such a "smooth" set of samples to determine just how well they impact team success: KG being the poster boy of this. When drza/ElGee/Doc defend KG, they're not hand-waving away his team's playoff failures, pretending like it didn't happen - it's there, well-documented, it happened. What they're saying is his impact should not be defined by these failures, because everything we've seen points to Garnett being able to carry teams to dizzying heights, if given a more beneficial set-up.

I suppose it can come off as hand-waving because of how utterly rare it is that someone on the tier they think KG belongs to have such a long stretch of playoff failures. Critics always say "well, Dirk had a similar situation", or "LeBron had a similar situation, but he made it out of the first round every time!", not considering: timely performances, often above their real talent levels, from the supporting cast (2002-2003 Duncan), matchups/seeding (LBJ, who is most probably clearly better than KG anyway, enjoyed this somewhat in the weak East)

I'm not sure why there's a lot of confusion around that: it is very clear that KG does have flaws, and it doesn't help that he's one of the only members of the "best player on a championship team" club who wasn't/wasn't perceived to be the first option on offense (leaving this open for debate) - really, Russell's the only other one.

Perhaps it's due to the mathematical / teambuilding ideology/approach of rating players? Essentially, if you applied the same rigor of analysis to players you're about to draft, then obviously, when you've got two players who have similarly huge impacts, the deciding factor is how often you will be able to build a team around them, assuming the same context/circumstances/luck, etc. And that means stripping away at what a player can/can't control, among other things.

I'm tired, that may have all been a giant load of crap. Feel free to tear me a new one, but yeah, I guess that's what it all comes down to. Approach to analysis, the end in mind of this analysis, fundamental differences that can't really be reconciled.

[Okada]

The only way KG and Nash defenders will ever be vindicated is if you get a time machine, go back to 2004, and assassinate Robert Sarver, then find a way to force a KG trade.

[Navas]

So this is how you come to your decisions, eh? Okay:

The Mavs had to get better once Kidd came given that they were arguably the worst team in history. They still sucked though and the Mavs ended up feeling they had to trade Kidd because of his stupid ass off court behavior (a recurring them with him).

Ad hominem aside, no crap! A team has to get better when they draft a 1st round lotto player. Kidd's impact was huge, going from a paltry 13 wins to 36. And the Mavs didn't trade Kidd because of his off the court issues, review your history.

[quote="Doctor MJ"]
You then skip right to the Nets. Odd that. Notice that the Suns didn't see any great immediate change with
Kidd coming and going,[quote]

Suns made the playoffs every year when Kidd was there. They didn't when they traded him, funny that. And even better, Suns missed the playoffs with Nash in the team.

You also forget that Kidd was an elite defender, even in his later career. He could guard most positions, watch his defense against LeBron in the 09 finals, even without his athleticism he had a very high IQ. Only thing I'll concede was that Nash was a better shooter but Kidd had more intangibles to his game. He could post up, he could turn steals, rebounds, loose balls into a fast break. Also, Nash's defense is such a liability that his own college coach has told him he was one of the worst defenders he had ever seen. Kidd had an uncanny ability to turn defense into offense quickly, throw in his defense and it's easy to see why he was a better player than Nash.

And again, look at that roster, east conference or not, it was not athletic, had no post game, and lacked big men. Nash had a team that catered to his strengths but he never made it to the finals. Kidd did with a lesser roster, twice. Kidd with those Suns teams would've been unfair for the NBA, the closest he had to what Nash had was the Mavs with his 2nd stint.

Even though Kidd didn't have Nash's scoring ability, Kidd's still a better player over Nash.

EDIT: I'll also add, you know who the second best player on those Nets teams were? Kenyon Martin. That says something.

[MisterWestside]

You, my friend, have shoved those words into my mouth, which is OK because I'm hungry.

*drops mic?*

[rrravenred]

You, my friend, have shoved those words into my mouth, which is OK because I'm hungry.

*drops mic?*

Yup. Snapped that up for my sig.

[therealbig3]

So this is how you come to your decisions, eh? Okay:

The Mavs had to get better once Kidd came given that they were arguably the worst team in history. They still sucked though and the Mavs ended up feeling they had to trade Kidd because of his stupid ass off court behavior (a recurring them with him).

Ad hominem aside, no crap! A team has to get better when they draft a 1st round lotto player. Kidd's impact was huge, going from a paltry 13 wins to 36. And the Mavs didn't trade Kidd because of his off the court issues, review your history.

You then skip right to the Nets. Odd that. Notice that the Suns didn't see any great immediate change with
Kidd coming and going,

Suns made the playoffs every year when Kidd was there. They didn't when they traded him, funny that. And even better, Suns missed the playoffs with Nash in the team.

You also forget that Kidd was an elite defender, even in his later career. He could guard most positions, watch his defense against LeBron in the 09 finals, even without his athleticism he had a very high IQ. Only thing I'll concede was that Nash was a better shooter but Kidd had more intangibles to his game. He could post up, he could turn steals, rebounds, loose balls into a fast break. Also, Nash's defense is such a liability that his own college coach has told him he was one of the worst defenders he had ever seen. Kidd had an uncanny ability to turn defense into offense quickly, throw in his defense and it's easy to see why he was a better player than Nash.

And again, look at that roster, east conference or not, it was not athletic, had no post game, and lacked big men. Nash had a team that catered to his strengths but he never made it to the finals. Kidd did with a lesser roster, twice. Kidd with those Suns teams would've been unfair for the NBA, the closest he had to what Nash had was the Mavs with his 2nd stint.

Even though Kidd didn't have Nash's scoring ability, Kidd's still a better player over Nash.

EDIT: I'll also add, you know who the second best player on those Nets teams were? Kenyon Martin. That says something.

I think you're way off in your assessment. The Nets weren't athletic? What? Jefferson, Martin, and Kittles were unathletic bums I guess. Or maybe they were key parts of a team that generated A TON of its offense in transition. Hard to be unathletic and be such a good transition team.

Furthermore, the Nets sucked offensively. You've also downplayed Kittles, Jefferson, and Martin, but they were putting up good production with or without Kidd. They were also big parts of that defense, which was far more responsible for their Finals runs than the offense. Martin was actually the team's best defensive player...well him or Collins.

The players around Kidd were a lot better than you give them credit for. Kidd was good, Nash was better.

[mysticbb]

Again I have no doubts Nash would get good results offensively. He's talented and smart. I just dont think its ideal.

It isn't ideal, but that is not really the point. The overall team would improve based on better offense, while the defense would likely stay the same. And yes, we have enough evidence that teams with Nash on the court can play very good defense (in 2006 with Kurt Thomas on the court, last season with Howard and without Bryant, etc.).

[mysticbb]

Critics always say "well, Dirk had a similar situation", or "LeBron had a similar situation, but he made it out of the first round every time!"

Well, keep in mind here that some of those "critics" actually went as far as proclaiming that neither Nowitzki nor James could have been the 1st option on championship teams. Until 2011 that was a very common statement about Nowitzki. And some critics used the fact that the Heat lost that year to further bolster their arsenal against James. That all went down the toilette the very next year, when those people tried to convince themselves that James somehow got incredible better even though there was no compelling evidence for that.

As someone said in this thread: The "winner" argument is based on a narrative after the fact. And it irks me that somehow in some people's mind a player can become a better player over night, because the team he played for just won the last game of the season.