Stockton Vs Nash vs Kidd

[Doctor MJ]

So you are saying that there are offenses in the NFL that do not have a system? That Michael Vick and Steve Nash are similar in that they have unique abilities that just need to be harnessed properly and that is without having a system.

I can say without much hesitation that I do not agree with that. I have read hundreds of articles describing both Nash and Vick and I've never heard that description. I have yet to read an article about Nash saying he is a system-less PG. I can show you where analysts/coaches/GMs describe him as being in a particular system.

In fact when you say that Nash has to be used properly, suggests that he requires a particular system. It's not as if Nash is like Lawrence Taylor and Bill Parcells is just releasing him on the field to wreak havoc. Nash should be used in a specific manner. I think the difference of opinion is defining what "system" means:

sys·tem [sis-tuhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.
2.
any assemblage or set of correlated members: a system of currency; a system of shorthand characters.
3.
an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought: a system of philosophy.
4.
a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme: a system of government.
5.
any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure: a system of marking, numbering, or measuring; a winning system at bridge.

If Nash does not require a system, then there would be no order on the court, they would be playing pick up basketball.....

What I'm saying is that "baby oil" is not oil made out of babies.

Linguistically you could construct a concept called "baby oil" that is indeed made out of babies, but that's not what those who coined the word meant by it, and hence insisting that that's what baby oil is is clearly wrong.

Linguistically you could construct a concept called "system player" that means "any player who plays within anything that can be called a system", but that's not what those who coined the word meant by it, and hence insisting that that's what a system player is is clearly wrong.

There's an additional component here:

The entire reason you're using this phrase "system player" is because is has a negative connotation. You're trying to expand out the meaning of of it so that it fits Nash, and then use that to justify why it makes sense to call him by a phrase meant to be a criticism.

You should be looking simply to describe the player based on what his actual attributes are. If you want to knock the guy because he lacks the versatility to be used in different capacities without showing some decrease in his impact, that's accurate and useful in some ways.

But you continuing to use the phrase "system player" to describe him reads no different to those who know the meaning of the expression than someone staging a protest against the sacrifice of babies to create baby oil.

[G35]

So you are saying that there are offenses in the NFL that do not have a system? That Michael Vick and Steve Nash are similar in that they have unique abilities that just need to be harnessed properly and that is without having a system.

I can say without much hesitation that I do not agree with that. I have read hundreds of articles describing both Nash and Vick and I've never heard that description. I have yet to read an article about Nash saying he is a system-less PG. I can show you where analysts/coaches/GMs describe him as being in a particular system.

In fact when you say that Nash has to be used properly, suggests that he requires a particular system. It's not as if Nash is like Lawrence Taylor and Bill Parcells is just releasing him on the field to wreak havoc. Nash should be used in a specific manner. I think the difference of opinion is defining what "system" means:

sys·tem [sis-tuhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.
2.
any assemblage or set of correlated members: a system of currency; a system of shorthand characters.
3.
an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought: a system of philosophy.
4.
a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme: a system of government.
5.
any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure: a system of marking, numbering, or measuring; a winning system at bridge.

If Nash does not require a system, then there would be no order on the court, they would be playing pick up basketball.....

What I'm saying is that "baby oil" is not oil made out of babies.

Linguistically you could construct a concept called "baby oil" that is indeed made out of babies, but that's not what those who coined the word meant by it, and hence insisting that that's what baby oil is is clearly wrong.

Linguistically you could construct a concept called "system player" that means "any player who plays within anything that can be called a system", but that's not what those who coined the word meant by it, and hence insisting that that's what a system player is is clearly wrong.

There's an additional component here:

The entire reason you're using this phrase "system player" is because is has a negative connotation. You're trying to expand out the meaning of of it so that it fits Nash, and then use that to justify why it makes sense to call him by a phrase meant to be a criticism.

You should be looking simply to describe the player based on what his actual attributes are. If you want to knock the guy because he lacks the versatility to be used in different capacities without showing some decrease in his impact, that's accurate and useful in some ways.

But you continuing to use the phrase "system player" to describe him reads no different to those who know the meaning of the expression than someone staging a protest against the sacrifice of babies to create baby oil.

Understood....I see your point.

However, I think that those who get ruffled at Nash being called a system PG are being sensitive.

Michael Jordan's teams were at their best when he was put in a system

Wilt was better when put in a system, same with Kobe and Shaq.

All those players put up ridiculous boxscore numbers when NOT in a system. Their teams played better in a system. I realize that D'Antoni/Nash style of running an offense is not so much as system but a philosophy. They did not run many set plays. Which Nash thrives in, most PG's would like to play in a free flowing....not-system....that is why Larry Brown had contentious relationships with his PG's because he wanted them "to play the right way". Nash would not thrive under Larry Brown and Brown is one of the greatest coach's ever. Nash wouldn't thrive under Popovich. I just read an article from Marc Stein about Popovich:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10955 ... an-stories

The Spurs modeled themselves after the Jazz

Long before they became a factory for coaches and general managers, even before Duncan made it to the Alamo City, San Antonio looked at the Utah Jazz with the same sort of reverence with which rival teams study the Spurs today.

The Spurs saw the exacting execution and no-excuse manner in which Jerry Sloan, Karl Malone and John Stockton conducted their business and strained to emulate them.

The toughness. The precision. The physicality. The professionalism. The fact that Utah's offense was consistently effective even when everyone on the other side of the ball knew what was coming.

This quote is what I constantly rant about being the difference between Steve Nash and John Stockton

"They weren't in a high-profile market, but they were incredibly consistent," Buford says. "They were incredibly competitive, defensively tough-minded and had a mentality that we knew we needed to get to. We knew we had to get tougher to get to their level.

Why Nash would not thrive in his "not a system player" preference

Almost every trip down the floor, even as he calls plays out, Pop adds clear-as-day hand signals to leave nothing to chance. This ensures that none of his players can claim he didn't hear the call.

"Do you know how hard it is to look at the point guard -- and the coach -- when you're the guy inbounding the ball all the time?" Horry says. "But you gotta get used to it, 'cause with Pop, pretty much every play has a hand gesture."

Said Kurt Thomas: "Everyone is not going to pick up Pop's system fast. He'll do [signals] real fast; he'll do it standing, he'll do it sitting in a chair. I've played for [other] coaches that used hand signals, but I've also played for some that do none."

I think you bristle at the thought of giving one iota of thought that Nash is a system player because it opens the door to criticism that the system made/helped Nash and it wasn't just his own brilliance. Now that we are getting into the nuances of system/not a system, I think you can understand that not running a specific system is still running a system as convoluted as that sounds.

Once again I go back to the definition: a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme: a system of government.

It's not that Nash ran plays, but the other players on the court coordinated their actions to best fit what Nash was doing with the ball. They went to specific spots on the floor, they positioned themselves to give Nash screens as necessary. If there was no system, you wouldn't be able to describe or evaluate what Nash was doing. There is a system to the madness.

This article was written right after Nash was traded to the Lakers and it described if Nash was capable of replicating his success in PHX,
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... ing-in-l-a

The result was something Kevin Arnovitz aptly called a "hummingbird trapped in a sandwich bag." It just didn't look right. O'Neal ate up the space Nash needed to operate and ended the team's tradition of confusing defenses by covering the entire floor with shooters.

The 2005 and 2006 MVP didn't even make the All-Star team in 2009, and most believed he was the same player he had ever been, but the system didn't allow him to do what he does best. Ask him to do everything on offense, and Nash runs a beautiful show. Ask him to do regular point guard things, like make an entry pass, cut through the lane, and stand in the corner, and it's not clear why he was ever the MVP. It's like Mario Andretti driving the school bus.

It's funny how Stockton can look all world doing regular point guard things....but Nash can't.

The takeaway is that Nash -- tiny by NBA standards and hampered by a bad back -- is not a magical player under all circumstances. He's a magical player in the right system -- namely one where he dominates the ball.

And it works. The best measure of team offense is points per possession. Every season from 2004-05 through 2009-10 the Suns had one of the 100 best offenses in NBA history, out of 1,303 seasons in the Basketball-Reference database.

There are rules to the D'Antoni offense Nash has been playing in since he became a huge star in 2004. One basic idea is that Nash's teammates don't do too much. If Nash passes you the ball, get rid of it quickly by shooting or passing. If you're guarded, and that doesn't happen ... don't go putting the ball on the floor and creating your own shot. Instead, the play is to give it back to Nash to let him create the team's next good opportunity.

Henry Abbott made that description about Nash. Nash was the total focus of the Suns offense, as you claim there is no system....so if someone came in to replace Nash, how could they do it? Any PG coming in to spell Nash couldn't do it the way he does it, it's COMPLETELY TAILORED TO NASH. Of course anyone else isn't going to fare as well. His teammates were effectively neutered and only there to follow Nash's directions.

Now I know the counterpoint, "Well the offense was effective, best in NBA history, what is there to complain about?" Yes, what is there to find fault in...here are a few questions:

1. Why are Nash's teammates blamed for not producing more in the playoff's particularly Amare/Marion when Nash is the focal point of the offense. If something wasn't created, it's one man's responsibility.

2. This is similar to the OKC situation where Scott Brooks criticized for not developing other options e.g. playing Jeremy Lamb, Perry Jones, Collison. If you never get the opportunity to create and develop confidence, the playoff's is not the time to start doing that.

3. Yes the Suns offense was successful, but it did not win. Sports is not like business where you can be successful by having a portion of the market or catering to a certain customer. The culmination of any sport is to win. Ask Steve Nash. When you make Steve Nash the best player (debatable imo) you instantly put a ceiling on how good that team can be. Same thing for other PG's, I'm not singling Steve out for this, basketball is a game of height/talent. When the Suns lose and the argument is they played a better team, that's not an excuse. The Suns went all in with Nash, they put their money on him that he would be able to overcome the other giants like Duncan, Dirk, Kobe, KG, Lebron. When he wins the MVP twice the belief is that he can do it, and please let's not make it seem as if it was a David vs Goliath situation, those Suns teams were very talented.....

[acrossthecourt]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3910443

The sputtering Suns fired Porter just four months into his first season as Phoenix coach and replaced him with assistant coach Alvin Gentry. Gentry promptly promised a return to the style so successful under Porter's predecessor, Mike D'Antoni.

"We are who we are and I think we have to go back to trying to establish a breakneck pace like we've had in the past," Gentry said at a news conference Monday announcing his promotion.

Sounds like Nash is a system player to me.

Okay, so that brings me in as the broken record to explain what I've been explaining for nearly a decade now:

That's not what a system player is.

The "system" designation comes out of football after scouts got burned by improperly attributing which aspects of a particular team were truly the irreplaceable parts. The classic case was with the Run n' Gun system of the University of Houston that led to Andre Wade and David Klingler being drafted extremely high in the draft only to be shown that they could not replicate their success outside of the entire context that existed at their college.

A useful counter example is Michael Vick (or Randall Cunningham if you're older), who one might naively think was a system quarterback. Vick is a guy who needs to be able to have the freedom to either pass or run in order to have his full effect. Forcing him to play a more traditional drop back passing role will obviously make him considerably less effective, but no one in football considers this to be strange or surprising. The salient point with someone like Vick was always that you can have great success with him if you use him properly, and if you fail to do so that's only a reflection on you being incompetent.

Hence while the extremely general word "system" can be used to describe what Vick needs, the reasons why the term "system player" came into existence were for negative attributes that have nothing to do with Vick, and therefore he is not a system player.

With Nash you've got a guy who has proven he can be incredibly successful on the highest levels, and whose statistical calling card is his irreplaceability. So, quite clearly he's not a system player. Rather, he's a guy in a Vick-like category.

The irony of all this is can be summed up as follows:

A system player puts up big individual stats without really lifting his team.
Steve Nash really lifted his team without putting up big individual stats.

Nash is quite literally the opposite of a system player because those most likely to overrate system players are also most likely to underrate Nash.

To put it succinctly, Nash IS the system.

It doesn't seem you can be reasoned with on this subject. Your entire point is predicated on lack of team success for Stockton, when posters have repeatedly shown his team success was greater than Nash's.

snip

Debating with you is a fools errand because you read only what you want to read, you hear what you want to hear, you change goal posts to fit your narrative, and you cherry pick the hell out of stats to make your argument.

Nash's years when he wasn't in his prime lol, really. Nash didn't start for two years with PHX and then was traded to DAL...what top 20-25 player starts their career like that? I can't think of any. Even going to Dallas he had to compete with Hubert Davis and Robert Pack as the starter. Nash's ability doesn't pop out at you as a game changer. He was labeled as a great shooter but that didn't become apparent until he went back to Phoenix. Nash was never seen as a franchise player, Dirk was clearly the best player and Finley was arguably the 2nd best player. It's funny how players failures are blamed on the coach. Except in Nash's case I think he has been LUCKY to play with the coach's he had; Nash wouldn't work with Phil Jackson who preferred bigger guards who can defend, Nash wouldn't work with Jerry Sloan who prefers...a more physical type player, same thing with Pat Riley who emphasized defense. Nash is lucky he played with offensive minded coach's, Nelson played to Nash's strengths actually. It just wasn't conducive to winning a championship....which is is similar to what Mike D'Antoni did with Nash. It's curious how NO ONE ever says Mike D ever misused Nash but he he can't coach anywhere else, wonder why?

You cherry picking Nash from 2005-2010 as his prime is as funny when people say Hakeem's prime is from 1994-95. But it's hard to pinpoint Nash's prime because he was spotty in Dallas and even in your selected 2005-10 the Suns failed to make the playoff's....why?....once again the blame is on the coaching. Nash has had some terrible coach's, which is a legit excuse for his teams underachieving but Nash looks good...../green font/

Then for some inexplicable reason you only pick Stockton's years from 87-94.....clearly avoiding the years when the Jazz finally acquired someone in the form of Hornacek to help Stockton/Malone. That is as obvious an agenda as it gets. In the four full seasons with Hornacek the Jazz averaged 60.25 wins which is clearly dominant and shows that if the Jazz had done something earlier in Stockton/Malone's prime they could have done much more in the playoff's. I think it's clear that a 3rd/4th player is huge at taking defensive pressure off stars, you can clearly see that with OKC and Miami, you have to have good role players.

Now you rant about how much help does an MVP player need and I think you should be asking Nash that question. Who is the only MVP to not lead his team to the finals? That would be Nash. Even Durant has participated in the finals. Nash had a lot of help, Amare/Marion are two All NBA level players...MVP contending players....and he couldn't get to the finals. Nash even had Boris Diaw.....now this is something I always thought but I think Nash's 2006 MVP narrative is so overrated. That he somehow led a bunch of scrubs to 54 wins in 2006 when that is further from the truth. Marion has a greater PER that year than Nash did. Marion had more wins shares (14.6 to 12.4) than Nash and the gap on offense was not even that big. I actually believe that if Marion had gone down that season instead of Amare that team would have done worse because Marion was the defensive anchor on that team. Furthermore, I know everyone just saw how good Boris Diaw played yesterday creating offense, and leading the Spurs in scoring. That is what Boris did for the Suns that year; Diaw was second on the team in assists handing out over six assists a game, 6.9 reb's and 13 ppg. That is a huge role player for that team. Nash was not the only one creating and as we see Nash did not make those players good, they were talented as well. But people get Nash-glare in their eyes and can't see anything else going on the court.

When an MVP has two other All NBA players, 6MOY (Barbosa), 1st team all defensive player (Raja Bell) on his team at the same time in a 3-5 year period, those Suns teams underachieved.....

When a team underachieves, 100% of the blame goes onto the star. It's very annoying. Nash didn't underachieve in the playoffs. He was usually great. But his teammates did, and there were injuries.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Nash needs to dominate the ball in order to be effective. Just look at what happened when he went to LA and what he did in Dallas. Unless he is dominating the ball he isn't very effective. Stick him next to Kobe, Dirk, LeBron, Shaq, or any other MVP type and he turns into an above average borderline all-star. Guys like Stockton and Kidd thrive next to elite players.

Kidd and Stockton found ways to be effective without the ball. They could both play half court and run-n-gun. They are also two of the greatest defensive players at their position. Kidd and Stockton defended Kobe and Jordan while Nash sat in a corner with Bruce Bowen and his teammates did the work. Why do you think Dallas let him walk?

Nash was statistically the worst player in the NBA at taking game winning shots. I never want my best player to be my PG, and unless Nash is the best player he isn't very effective. Stockton/Kidd>>>>>>>>Nash

[Texas Chuck]

. Why do you think Dallas let him walk?

First letting him walk was a big mistake. But the reason they let him walk had nothing to do with defense. It had everything to do with Cuban being convinced Nash wouldn't be able to live up to that contract the last couple years--and depending on who you believe--Dallas didnt get a chance to match the Suns offer.

The living up to his contract was a legit concern considering his age, his general fitness level, his back, and his party lifestyle while with the Mavs. As it turned out, Nash to his credit got himself in the best possible physical condition, did everything he could to manage his back, and cut way back on his off the court stuff.

Nope that was Cuban showing financial restraint at precisely the wrong time---not a decision to go for a defense first PG. They drafted Harris to help defend PGs but the intention was absolutely to still have Nash.

[Ancalagon]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3910443



Sounds like Nash is a system player to me.

Okay, so that brings me in as the broken record to explain what I've been explaining for nearly a decade now:

That's not what a system player is.

The "system" designation comes out of football after scouts got burned by improperly attributing which aspects of a particular team were truly the irreplaceable parts. The classic case was with the Run n' Gun system of the University of Houston that led to Andre Wade and David Klingler being drafted extremely high in the draft only to be shown that they could not replicate their success outside of the entire context that existed at their college.

A useful counter example is Michael Vick (or Randall Cunningham if you're older), who one might naively think was a system quarterback. Vick is a guy who needs to be able to have the freedom to either pass or run in order to have his full effect. Forcing him to play a more traditional drop back passing role will obviously make him considerably less effective, but no one in football considers this to be strange or surprising. The salient point with someone like Vick was always that you can have great success with him if you use him properly, and if you fail to do so that's only a reflection on you being incompetent.

Hence while the extremely general word "system" can be used to describe what Vick needs, the reasons why the term "system player" came into existence were for negative attributes that have nothing to do with Vick, and therefore he is not a system player.

With Nash you've got a guy who has proven he can be incredibly successful on the highest levels, and whose statistical calling card is his irreplaceability. So, quite clearly he's not a system player. Rather, he's a guy in a Vick-like category.

The irony of all this is can be summed up as follows:

A system player puts up big individual stats without really lifting his team.
Steve Nash really lifted his team without putting up big individual stats.

Nash is quite literally the opposite of a system player because those most likely to overrate system players are also most likely to underrate Nash.

To put it succinctly, Nash IS the system.

snip

Debating with you is a fools errand because you read only what you want to read, you hear what you want to hear, you change goal posts to fit your narrative, and you cherry pick the hell out of stats to make your argument.

Nash's years when he wasn't in his prime lol, really. Nash didn't start for two years with PHX and then was traded to DAL...what top 20-25 player starts their career like that? I can't think of any. Even going to Dallas he had to compete with Hubert Davis and Robert Pack as the starter. Nash's ability doesn't pop out at you as a game changer. He was labeled as a great shooter but that didn't become apparent until he went back to Phoenix. Nash was never seen as a franchise player, Dirk was clearly the best player and Finley was arguably the 2nd best player. It's funny how players failures are blamed on the coach. Except in Nash's case I think he has been LUCKY to play with the coach's he had; Nash wouldn't work with Phil Jackson who preferred bigger guards who can defend, Nash wouldn't work with Jerry Sloan who prefers...a more physical type player, same thing with Pat Riley who emphasized defense. Nash is lucky he played with offensive minded coach's, Nelson played to Nash's strengths actually. It just wasn't conducive to winning a championship....which is is similar to what Mike D'Antoni did with Nash. It's curious how NO ONE ever says Mike D ever misused Nash but he he can't coach anywhere else, wonder why?

You cherry picking Nash from 2005-2010 as his prime is as funny when people say Hakeem's prime is from 1994-95. But it's hard to pinpoint Nash's prime because he was spotty in Dallas and even in your selected 2005-10 the Suns failed to make the playoff's....why?....once again the blame is on the coaching. Nash has had some terrible coach's, which is a legit excuse for his teams underachieving but Nash looks good...../green font/

Then for some inexplicable reason you only pick Stockton's years from 87-94.....clearly avoiding the years when the Jazz finally acquired someone in the form of Hornacek to help Stockton/Malone. That is as obvious an agenda as it gets. In the four full seasons with Hornacek the Jazz averaged 60.25 wins which is clearly dominant and shows that if the Jazz had done something earlier in Stockton/Malone's prime they could have done much more in the playoff's. I think it's clear that a 3rd/4th player is huge at taking defensive pressure off stars, you can clearly see that with OKC and Miami, you have to have good role players.

Now you rant about how much help does an MVP player need and I think you should be asking Nash that question. Who is the only MVP to not lead his team to the finals? That would be Nash. Even Durant has participated in the finals. Nash had a lot of help, Amare/Marion are two All NBA level players...MVP contending players....and he couldn't get to the finals. Nash even had Boris Diaw.....now this is something I always thought but I think Nash's 2006 MVP narrative is so overrated. That he somehow led a bunch of scrubs to 54 wins in 2006 when that is further from the truth. Marion has a greater PER that year than Nash did. Marion had more wins shares (14.6 to 12.4) than Nash and the gap on offense was not even that big. I actually believe that if Marion had gone down that season instead of Amare that team would have done worse because Marion was the defensive anchor on that team. Furthermore, I know everyone just saw how good Boris Diaw played yesterday creating offense, and leading the Spurs in scoring. That is what Boris did for the Suns that year; Diaw was second on the team in assists handing out over six assists a game, 6.9 reb's and 13 ppg. That is a huge role player for that team. Nash was not the only one creating and as we see Nash did not make those players good, they were talented as well. But people get Nash-glare in their eyes and can't see anything else going on the court.

When an MVP has two other All NBA players, 6MOY (Barbosa), 1st team all defensive player (Raja Bell) on his team at the same time in a 3-5 year period, those Suns teams underachieved.....

When a team underachieves, 100% of the blame goes onto the star. It's very annoying. Nash didn't underachieve in the playoffs. He was usually great. But his teammates did, and there were injuries.

This is a great point.

Did Stockton underachieve in 1987 when he made his first 2 career playoff starts and scored 14.5 and 12? How about when he had averaged 19 and 16 against the Lakers in 1988 and scored 29 and 20 in the Game 7 loss? Or I suppose he didn't do enough in the 1989 close-out game against the Warriors when he had 34 and 16? Was his average of almost 28 and 14 in the series not enough?

The funny thing about referencing the playoff series above is that I am not even getting into defense, where Stockton was considered elite and Nash was considered a liability.

Don't get me wrong- I have great respect for Nash and even moreso for Kidd's career. But the same arguments used for Nash all work better for Stockton.

Oh, and don't give me the whole "Robin" argument. Nash had his opportunity to play alongside great players in Dallas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.

[G35]

Okay, so that brings me in as the broken record to explain what I've been explaining for nearly a decade now:

That's not what a system player is.

The "system" designation comes out of football after scouts got burned by improperly attributing which aspects of a particular team were truly the irreplaceable parts. The classic case was with the Run n' Gun system of the University of Houston that led to Andre Wade and David Klingler being drafted extremely high in the draft only to be shown that they could not replicate their success outside of the entire context that existed at their college.

A useful counter example is Michael Vick (or Randall Cunningham if you're older), who one might naively think was a system quarterback. Vick is a guy who needs to be able to have the freedom to either pass or run in order to have his full effect. Forcing him to play a more traditional drop back passing role will obviously make him considerably less effective, but no one in football considers this to be strange or surprising. The salient point with someone like Vick was always that you can have great success with him if you use him properly, and if you fail to do so that's only a reflection on you being incompetent.

Hence while the extremely general word "system" can be used to describe what Vick needs, the reasons why the term "system player" came into existence were for negative attributes that have nothing to do with Vick, and therefore he is not a system player.

With Nash you've got a guy who has proven he can be incredibly successful on the highest levels, and whose statistical calling card is his irreplaceability. So, quite clearly he's not a system player. Rather, he's a guy in a Vick-like category.

The irony of all this is can be summed up as follows:

A system player puts up big individual stats without really lifting his team.
Steve Nash really lifted his team without putting up big individual stats.

Nash is quite literally the opposite of a system player because those most likely to overrate system players are also most likely to underrate Nash.

To put it succinctly, Nash IS the system.

Debating with you is a fools errand because you read only what you want to read, you hear what you want to hear, you change goal posts to fit your narrative, and you cherry pick the hell out of stats to make your argument.

Nash's years when he wasn't in his prime lol, really. Nash didn't start for two years with PHX and then was traded to DAL...what top 20-25 player starts their career like that? I can't think of any. Even going to Dallas he had to compete with Hubert Davis and Robert Pack as the starter. Nash's ability doesn't pop out at you as a game changer. He was labeled as a great shooter but that didn't become apparent until he went back to Phoenix. Nash was never seen as a franchise player, Dirk was clearly the best player and Finley was arguably the 2nd best player. It's funny how players failures are blamed on the coach. Except in Nash's case I think he has been LUCKY to play with the coach's he had; Nash wouldn't work with Phil Jackson who preferred bigger guards who can defend, Nash wouldn't work with Jerry Sloan who prefers...a more physical type player, same thing with Pat Riley who emphasized defense. Nash is lucky he played with offensive minded coach's, Nelson played to Nash's strengths actually. It just wasn't conducive to winning a championship....which is is similar to what Mike D'Antoni did with Nash. It's curious how NO ONE ever says Mike D ever misused Nash but he he can't coach anywhere else, wonder why?

You cherry picking Nash from 2005-2010 as his prime is as funny when people say Hakeem's prime is from 1994-95. But it's hard to pinpoint Nash's prime because he was spotty in Dallas and even in your selected 2005-10 the Suns failed to make the playoff's....why?....once again the blame is on the coaching. Nash has had some terrible coach's, which is a legit excuse for his teams underachieving but Nash looks good...../green font/

Then for some inexplicable reason you only pick Stockton's years from 87-94.....clearly avoiding the years when the Jazz finally acquired someone in the form of Hornacek to help Stockton/Malone. That is as obvious an agenda as it gets. In the four full seasons with Hornacek the Jazz averaged 60.25 wins which is clearly dominant and shows that if the Jazz had done something earlier in Stockton/Malone's prime they could have done much more in the playoff's. I think it's clear that a 3rd/4th player is huge at taking defensive pressure off stars, you can clearly see that with OKC and Miami, you have to have good role players.

Now you rant about how much help does an MVP player need and I think you should be asking Nash that question. Who is the only MVP to not lead his team to the finals? That would be Nash. Even Durant has participated in the finals. Nash had a lot of help, Amare/Marion are two All NBA level players...MVP contending players....and he couldn't get to the finals. Nash even had Boris Diaw.....now this is something I always thought but I think Nash's 2006 MVP narrative is so overrated. That he somehow led a bunch of scrubs to 54 wins in 2006 when that is further from the truth. Marion has a greater PER that year than Nash did. Marion had more wins shares (14.6 to 12.4) than Nash and the gap on offense was not even that big. I actually believe that if Marion had gone down that season instead of Amare that team would have done worse because Marion was the defensive anchor on that team. Furthermore, I know everyone just saw how good Boris Diaw played yesterday creating offense, and leading the Spurs in scoring. That is what Boris did for the Suns that year; Diaw was second on the team in assists handing out over six assists a game, 6.9 reb's and 13 ppg. That is a huge role player for that team. Nash was not the only one creating and as we see Nash did not make those players good, they were talented as well. But people get Nash-glare in their eyes and can't see anything else going on the court.

When an MVP has two other All NBA players, 6MOY (Barbosa), 1st team all defensive player (Raja Bell) on his team at the same time in a 3-5 year period, those Suns teams underachieved.....

When a team underachieves, 100% of the blame goes onto the star. It's very annoying. Nash didn't underachieve in the playoffs. He was usually great. But his teammates did, and there were injuries.

This is a great point.

Did Stockton underachieve in 1987 when he made his first 2 career playoff starts and scored 14.5 and 12? How about when he had averaged 19 and 16 against the Lakers in 1988 and scored 29 and 20 in the Game 7 loss? Or I suppose he didn't do enough in the 1989 close-out game against the Warriors when he had 34 and 16? Was his average of almost 28 and 14 in the series not enough?

The funny thing about referencing the playoff series above is that I am not even getting into defense, where Stockton was considered elite and Nash was considered a liability.

Don't get me wrong- I have great respect for Nash and even moreso for Kidd's career. But the same arguments used for Nash all work better for Stockton.

Oh, and don't give me the whole "Robin" argument. Nash had his opportunity to play alongside great players in Dallas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.

Unfortunately for Nash, he is the whole Suns offense, yes? I keep hearing the rest of the Suns players are essentially garbage without him. Whenever he was not in the lineup the Suns lose. Whenever he rested the Suns gave up the lead. The offense is completely built around Nash.

So if his teammates underachieved....didn't Nash fail to help them perform better since he's the entire offense?.....

[KayDee35]

1. Stockton
2. Kidd
.
.
.
.
.
3. Nash

Nash led some all-time great offenses, but he never made it to an NBA finals, and he was terrible defensively. Last I checked, defense matters when it comes to winning, especially in the PS.

Stockton is the Tim Duncan of PGs. Very little flash, all substance.

[acrossthecourt]

To put it succinctly, Nash IS the system.


When a team underachieves, 100% of the blame goes onto the star. It's very annoying. Nash didn't underachieve in the playoffs. He was usually great. But his teammates did, and there were injuries.

This is a great point.

Did Stockton underachieve in 1987 when he made his first 2 career playoff starts and scored 14.5 and 12? How about when he had averaged 19 and 16 against the Lakers in 1988 and scored 29 and 20 in the Game 7 loss? Or I suppose he didn't do enough in the 1989 close-out game against the Warriors when he had 34 and 16? Was his average of almost 28 and 14 in the series not enough?

The funny thing about referencing the playoff series above is that I am not even getting into defense, where Stockton was considered elite and Nash was considered a liability.

Don't get me wrong- I have great respect for Nash and even moreso for Kidd's career. But the same arguments used for Nash all work better for Stockton.

Oh, and don't give me the whole "Robin" argument. Nash had his opportunity to play alongside great players in Dallas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.

Unfortunately for Nash, he is the whole Suns offense, yes? I keep hearing the rest of the Suns players are essentially garbage without him. Whenever he was not in the lineup the Suns lose. Whenever he rested the Suns gave up the lead. The offense is completely built around Nash.

So if his teammates underachieved....didn't Nash fail to help them perform better since he's the entire offense?.....

If you agree he's the whole Suns offense, how would you respond if I told you the Suns are like half of the all-time top ten list in playoff teams by offense? I'm trying to find a link, but I know the Nash-Suns dominated on offense, even though they faced teams like the Spurs.

[Baller2014]

*snipped*

*snipped*

This is a great point.

Did Stockton underachieve in 1987 when he made his first 2 career playoff starts and scored 14.5 and 12? How about when he had averaged 19 and 16 against the Lakers in 1988 and scored 29 and 20 in the Game 7 loss? Or I suppose he didn't do enough in the 1989 close-out game against the Warriors when he had 34 and 16? Was his average of almost 28 and 14 in the series not enough?

The funny thing about referencing the playoff series above is that I am not even getting into defense, where Stockton was considered elite and Nash was considered a liability.

Don't get me wrong- I have great respect for Nash and even moreso for Kidd's career. But the same arguments used for Nash all work better for Stockton.

Oh, and don't give me the whole "Robin" argument. Nash had his opportunity to play alongside great players in Dallas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.

You know there were extensive posts responding to these thoughts (and others), that you have had ample chance to respond to. I'll keep it very simple though, since I think lots of detail results in insufficient answers. I have 3 questions, 1 for you, 1 for G35 and 1 for oaktown.

For you, I ask: "If Lebron and the Heatles posted big stats in a first round loss to a blatantly inferior team, should that mean they get a pass? Or should we look beyond those "big individual stats", and ask why those stats didn't translate into wins?"

For G35 I ask (for the 3rd time at least): "If Oscar hadn't gone to the Bucks at age 32, to ride Kareem's coattails to the finals, would he have been a worse player?"

For Oaktown I ask: "Do you think it's remotely objective to be basing any argument whatever on Nash's time in LA, when he was an injured 38-39 year old who barely played, and whose team and coach had a plethora of problems unrelated to Nash?"

[Doctor MJ]

Understood....I see your point.

Cool. Thank you for telling me as well.

However, I think that those who get ruffled at Nash being called a system PG are being sensitive.

Michael Jordan's teams were at their best when he was put in a system

Wilt was better when put in a system, same with Kobe and Shaq.

All those players put up ridiculous boxscore numbers when NOT in a system. Their teams played better in a system.

In football, which again is the source of the "system" criticism and really the only sport I can remember it being used regularly in until the D'Antoni/Nash thing, it's not some minor criticism. The University of Houston quarterbacks I mentioned were draft in the Top 10 overall, and utterly flopped in the NFL. The "system" tag was then applied to guys from places like Texas Tech resulting in some guy not getting drafted at all. The tag is literally a way of saying "I know he looks like a future All-Pro, but he actually shouldn't be in the NFL at all".

I get you seeing me as sensitive, and I don't actually deny it. When a player is polarizing with a major difference in opinion on him, the people involved tend to get polarized and assume criticisms are as serious as they logically could be rather than assuming differences in opinion are probably slight. And if I'm honest, it's not just that I'm hearing something about Nash here, it's also that it's coming from you who has always seemed to me to deviate quite a lot from my own opinion.

I'll try to be less sensitive, but you also need to take care with your words here. You're taking a phrase floating in the aether and using it without really understanding its significance. It should be no surprise if it causes people to confuse your intent. This is why I recommended focusing more on specific attributes rather than a holistic label. We can at least talk about how big an issue Nash's defense is, or how limited his versatility is, but the "system player" thing was an absolute showstopper because it's not actually a debatable thing and it's really big deal.

Why Nash would not thrive in his "not a system player" preference

See, this is just really, really weird to me. Here you've been using the "system player" label with regards to Nash, and now you criticize him for NOT being a system player? I don't even no what to say.

Look, as you indicated before with your quote of dictionary definitions, we can make the term "system" be as general as we want. My resistance before was based on "system player" meaning something precise that Nash clearly isn't (and I really don't know if I'd call any basketball player one), but sure, on some level there's something that could be called a system in the way he and his team's have played.

I think you bristle at the thought of giving one iota of thought that Nash is a system player because it opens the door to criticism that the system made/helped Nash and it wasn't just his own brilliance.

Nah the issue is that 'system player' is a precise and incredibly damning term that has been frequently and incorrectly ascribed to Nash specifically to criticize him in ways that other comparable players don't get criticized for.

I don't deny that Nash is fortunate to have played for D'Antoni compared to the MIke Browns of the world...but it's utterly bizarre to see that used against him in debates against guys who played with Jackson and Popovich. Your typical superstar has played for coaches who are at least comparable to D'Antoni, and yet in general this isn't brought up for player comparisons, and rightly so imho. Normally people seem to realize that the evaluation of player and coach is not a zero-sum game, but people try to treat Nash-D'Antoni differently, and that is what I rebut.

It's funny how Stockton can look all world doing regular point guard things....but Nash can't.

I suppose I'll break in here since you broke in:

He said: Box Nash in and he doesn't look like an MVP.
You said: But Stockton did when he did those things!
I say: No one ever thought Stockton was anything close to being the MVP though.

And this is the real point. Saying "Well if you forced Nash to play Stockton's role, he wouldn't do it as well" isn't crazy, but to what end? Why would you insist on judging players by how they look when underutilized?

I'm always willing to concede that we don't know what Stockton would have done in Nash's situation, and I understand that as a basis for using the Sloan system comparison as your acid test, but it should be clear why that's not really a definitive test.

The takeaway is that Nash -- tiny by NBA standards and hampered by a bad back -- is not a magical player under all circumstances. He's a magical player in the right system -- namely one where he dominates the ball.

And it works. The best measure of team offense is points per possession. Every season from 2004-05 through 2009-10 the Suns had one of the 100 best offenses in NBA history, out of 1,303 seasons in the Basketball-Reference database.

There are rules to the D'Antoni offense Nash has been playing in since he became a huge star in 2004. One basic idea is that Nash's teammates don't do too much. If Nash passes you the ball, get rid of it quickly by shooting or passing. If you're guarded, and that doesn't happen ... don't go putting the ball on the floor and creating your own shot. Instead, the play is to give it back to Nash to let him create the team's next good opportunity.

I'd emphasize the "And it works." part. All this talk of Nash not being able to play for Larry Brown is just weird to me. Larry Brown's offenses suck compared to the "and it works" Nash-oriented offenses. I have a ton of respect for Larry, but if he insisted on putting Nash in chains he would obviously be wrong.

What you're trying to do is basically show things through a Hoosiers-like lens. The cocky star comes in, gets benched by the crazy genius coach, adapts, and then eventually realizes he's playing far more effectively than before. But the Hoosiers guy you're talking about have no reputation for being able to normally design offenses that work as well as the ones Nash was running. Any coach worth a damn witnessing what Nash was doing would be in awe of it and would at most tinker with it gingerly.

Now I know the counterpoint, "Well the offense was effective, best in NBA history, what is there to complain about?" Yes, what is there to find fault in...here are a few questions:

1. Why are Nash's teammates blamed for not producing more in the playoff's particularly Amare/Marion when Nash is the focal point of the offense. If something wasn't created, it's one man's responsibility.

2. This is similar to the OKC situation where Scott Brooks criticized for not developing other options e.g. playing Jeremy Lamb, Perry Jones, Collison. If you never get the opportunity to create and develop confidence, the playoff's is not the time to start doing that.

3. Yes the Suns offense was successful, but it did not win. Sports is not like business where you can be successful by having a portion of the market or catering to a certain customer. The culmination of any sport is to win. Ask Steve Nash. When you make Steve Nash the best player (debatable imo) you instantly put a ceiling on how good that team can be. Same thing for other PG's, I'm not singling Steve out for this, basketball is a game of height/talent. When the Suns lose and the argument is they played a better team, that's not an excuse. The Suns went all in with Nash, they put their money on him that he would be able to overcome the other giants like Duncan, Dirk, Kobe, KG, Lebron. When he wins the MVP twice the belief is that he can do it, and please let's not make it seem as if it was a David vs Goliath situation, those Suns teams were very talented.....

1. But obviously it's not. You yourself chafe in part because you feel people are saying did everything by himself so obviously you don't believe in this.

You would surely rebut, "but Nash fans believe it". Maybe someone's crazy enough to believe that, but I don't.

2. Confidence? So, you're trying to make the argument now that Nash is one of these superstars who is so dominant that his teammates get passive? Dude, guys like that get passive because they're teammate doesn't pass them the ball, and then they're afraid to make a move when they somehow get the ball. That's the exact opposite of how Nash plays.

When a great facilitator runs a team you can see quite clearly how the confidence of the role players grow, and such was the case with Nash's teammates.

3. Right, this is where we get back to where I feel like the disagreement is artless.

In the end, you're not convinced because Nash didn't win a title playing like this. While I obviously see things very differently, I try to respect that this is a fundamental part of your beliefs, and I just try to persuade you that there need to be limits to how far you take this.

In the two years where Nash had a contender-serious supporting cast, his team's lost to the eventual champion Spurs both times. While I personally don't favor Duncan over Nash simply because of these results, I'd say it's clearly a QED for you, and I would just ask you to remember that a proof of Duncan > Nash really shouldn't say anything about Stockton vs Nash vs Kidd.

[Doctor MJ]

Nash needs to dominate the ball in order to be effective. Just look at what happened when he went to LA and what he did in Dallas.

You just said Nash was an ineffective player in Dallas.
Your argument is invalid.

[Ancalagon]

*snipped*

*snipped*

This is a great point.

Did Stockton underachieve in 1987 when he made his first 2 career playoff starts and scored 14.5 and 12? How about when he had averaged 19 and 16 against the Lakers in 1988 and scored 29 and 20 in the Game 7 loss? Or I suppose he didn't do enough in the 1989 close-out game against the Warriors when he had 34 and 16? Was his average of almost 28 and 14 in the series not enough?

The funny thing about referencing the playoff series above is that I am not even getting into defense, where Stockton was considered elite and Nash was considered a liability.

Don't get me wrong- I have great respect for Nash and even moreso for Kidd's career. But the same arguments used for Nash all work better for Stockton.

Oh, and don't give me the whole "Robin" argument. Nash had his opportunity to play alongside great players in Dallas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.

You know there were extensive posts responding to these thoughts (and others), that you have had ample chance to respond to. I'll keep it very simple though, since I think lots of detail results in insufficient answers. I have 3 questions, 1 for you, 1 for G35 and 1 for oaktown.

For you, I ask: "If Lebron and the Heatles posted big stats in a first round loss to a blatantly inferior team, should that mean they get a pass? Or should we look beyond those "big individual stats", and ask why those stats didn't translate into wins?"

For G35 I ask (for the 3rd time at least): "If Oscar hadn't gone to the Bucks at age 32, to ride Kareem's coattails to the finals, would he have been a worse player?"

For Oaktown I ask: "Do you think it's remotely objective to be basing any argument whatever on Nash's time in LA, when he was an injured 38-39 year old who barely played, and whose team and coach had a plethora of problems unrelated to Nash?"

I'll address your question with two responses:
1) I would never compare Stockton, Kidd, or Nash to LeBron James (the far superior player).
2) Yes, I would give LeBron a pass if he dominated a game/series and his team still lost (and in fact I have done so on several occasions, particularly when he was with Cleveland).

In the series-clinching loss vs. Golden State in 1989, John Stockton shot 13 for 20 from the field and had 16 assists. The team was 42 for 98. Let's do the math here ... That means on shots that Stockton neither shot nor assisted on, the team shot 13 for 62 .... 13 for 62!!!!!! 20.9%!! By the way, the team's shooting percentage on the same stats for the whole series was 25.7%. "All-stars" and "near All-stars" like Thurl Bailey (1 for 7) and Mark Eaton (2 for 6) didn't help much.

So, no, I am not holding that first round series loss against Stockton, just like I am not holding any Cleveland series loss against LeBron James.

[Baller2014]

Unfortunately for you, that's not how most people would react, and they'd be right to criticise. What you don't seem to understand is that there is a difference between big stats and big impact. Not all "20ppg!!!" are created equal, some guys have an impact beyond their volume stats (positive or negative). World B. Free once averaged 30ppg on good efficiency. It didn't indicate his actual value well. Kevin Porter had Stockton like numbers one year. It didn't mean his impact was the same as Stockton.

Stockton's stats were good in most of the series they lost... and so were Karl Malones. But they lost, so we should be asking why the team seemed to underachieve so often. I think your explanation, of blaming the role players, is silly, because the NBA is a star league, and those two (if they are as good as advertised) shouldn't need good role players to advance past the first round. Eaton was putting up 8-11 that series on 473 FG%... and he was a defensive player anyway, his value shouldn't be evident in his offensive numbers. That's why he was DPOY and an all-star. Bailey didn't shoot great this series (89 I mean) with 353 FG%, but he was 80% from the line, and he still put up 12-8 for them. It's not like the team they were against was anything to write home about. Their rotation was rookie Mitch Richmond (who shot only 250 from the 3pt line anyway) and a young Mullin who wasn't a shooter at all in this early stage of his career (he was 1-2 from the 3 pt line that series, because he knew better than to attempt more than 1-2 open shots, in the regular season he shot 230. from the 3pt line, and 125. in the playoffs generally). Their 2 shooting stars made 2/6 threes between them that series. In the middle they had 6-7 "big" Rod Higgins, who was meant to be a stretch 4 (but who shot 6-17 from the 3pt line that series). The rest of the rotation consisted of journeymen like Terry Teagle, Winston Garland and Larry Smith, with 20mpg of Manute Bol thrown in. That's a pathetic rotation. The Jazz stars deserve lots of blame for losing this series.

And it's not alone. They embarrassed themselves in 87, 88 (by only winning 47 games), 90, 91, 92, 93, etc. They didn't really meet expectations until 94 (where they can start pulling out the Hakeem and Jordan excuse).

[KayDee35]

You keep changing the criteria for evaluating these players and come up with arbitrary rules just so you can argue for Nash. Stockton and Malone's teammates were subpar and had trouble in the PS. That's all there is to it. The statistics bear it out.

When you say stuff like, "Bailey didn't shoot great this series (353 FG%) but he was 80% from the line," it's obvious that you're unwilling to be reasoned with.

[Baller2014]

He was 80% from the line. Which given he shot 15 FTs is well worth noting. His FG% was bad, but as I pointed out plenty of the Warriors had bad shooting (particularly from the 3, where the Warriors were non-existent), and he still put up 12-8. It's not like the Warrior role players were on fire or something. Malone and Stockton had the DPOY that year for heaven's sake. Really, there's every reason to blame Malone and Stockton for that year (among others). Sugar coating it with "well, at least Stockton had good stats" is not much of an excuse.

What happened in 1989 is the equivalent of prime Nash having prime KG and DPOY Tyson Chandler on his team, getting swept by the Hawks in the playoffs, and then saying "yeh, but his 4th man had a bit of a down series, he only had 12-8 on 44.3TS%". Who cares about his 4th man? He had KG and Tyson Chandler! It shouldn't matter who else he had on his team, they were playing the freaking Hawks! And in this scenario, the Hawks role players didn't even play particularly well, and the whole team was rubbish from the 3pt line.

[KayDee35]

Mullin and Richmond had a great series. Yet Stockton was often the best player on the floor. That Jazz team played poor defense in that series, despite having Eaton. That probably falls on Sloan. The rest of the players, except Stock and Malone, turned in poor performances. That's on those players. After Mullin and Richmond, the rest of the Warriors (except Manute and another player) had triple-digit ORTGs. After Stock and Malone, the rest of the Jazz (except Eaton!!) had double-digit ORTGs. Stock had a 50.6% AST% in that series, which is astounding considering his guys weren't making shots. So it's not like he wasn't setting his teammates up.

What more could one have asked for from Stockton in that series???

You're reaching very, very far if you're trying to blame Stock for them losing that series. Sloan deserves plenty of blame for their defense. And the role-players performed poorly on offense and defense.

Yet you want to ignore all that evidence and come up with some vague reason for their loss that ultimately points to Stockton.

We all have agendas. That's fine. But when said agendas trump rational discourse time after time, it's worthwhile to take a step back and reconsider. Having read this entire thread, I suggest, as a friend, that you ponder doing that in this case.

[Baller2014]

If your excuse is to blame Sloan, that's fine, at least it's an excuse. But the blame for the Jazz underachieving this year, like many others, should fall on one (or all) of those three to some extent (Sloan, Malone or Stockton). Stockton and Malone were supposed to be far and away the two best players. It's no answer to say "hey, Mullin and Richmond were great this series". Play better if you want to be compared to an MVP calibre guy. Frankly I think Stockton's impact wasn't nearly as great as his volume stats suggest, and he was unable to control the pace of the game well. I'd also remind people that the Warriors played at breakneck speed this season (way faster than the fastest of Nash's teams), so the volume stats are inflated for everyone (the mpg also inflate them). In that environment players are more likely to post big stats, but it doesn't mean the first impression of those stats is accurate (and it can't be, because if it was you wonder how the Jazz lost so decisively).

[G35]

If you agree he's the whole Suns offense, how would you respond if I told you the Suns are like half of the all-time top ten list in playoff teams by offense? I'm trying to find a link, but I know the Nash-Suns dominated on offense, even though they faced teams like the Spurs.

Here is a key point...I DO NOT THINK NASH IS THE SUNS ENTIRE OFFENSE....that is what his supporters think. They are the ones that say the Suns become garbage when Nash is not on the floor. That he made Marion, Amare, Diaw, Bell, Barbosa.

What I feel is Nash supporters speak from both sides of their mouth

"Nash ran the best offenses all time and he was the offense, Nash was the system, no one else could duplicate what Nash did."

Ok but then you hear this:

"Amare can't create his own shot, Marion can't create his own shot, the offense went to crap without Nash. It's the coach, the GM, the owner, every other player on the roster who underperformed."

Essentially anything good that happened was due to Nash.....any failures was someone else's fault. Nash is the only player in history that has this narrative.....

[G35]

I'll address your question with two responses:
1) I would never compare Stockton, Kidd, or Nash to LeBron James (the far superior player).
2) Yes, I would give LeBron a pass if he dominated a game/series and his team still lost (and in fact I have done so on several occasions, particularly when he was with Cleveland).

In the series-clinching loss vs. Golden State in 1989, John Stockton shot 13 for 20 from the field and had 16 assists. The team was 42 for 98. Let's do the math here ... That means on shots that Stockton neither shot nor assisted on, the team shot 13 for 62 .... 13 for 62!!!!!! 20.9%!! By the way, the team's shooting percentage on the same stats for the whole series was 25.7%. "All-stars" and "near All-stars" like Thurl Bailey (1 for 7) and Mark Eaton (2 for 6) didn't help much.

So, no, I am not holding that first round series loss against Stockton, just like I am not holding any Cleveland series loss against LeBron James.

I will say thank for your first point, that addresses another thread where someone compares Robert Horry to Karl Malone. Ridiculous comparisons that deserve no real attention.

I also agree with your second point, if any player dominates a series and their team does not win, it's not a damning mark on their record. This is sports, no one wins all the time. Russell is the only one that won a incredibly high level his whole career. That is why he should be ranked highly but his career is an outlier. However, I think it's the Kobe effect that people like to apply; people go into the playoff's that a player should or has to win at a certain level or their whole season is a failure. That is too extreme; for example this year Durant is taking a lot of heat for the Thunder failing to advance but he still had an incredible season and I'm not going to knock him down.

On the other hand, if a player never advances, it they always lose prematurely e.g. Tracy McGrady, Kevin Garnett on an annual basis that is a knock on their record. If you lose in the first rd four or five times in a row, then you do have to look at how that player impacts their team. For example Dirk losing in the first rd to the 8th seed Warriors was bad...OTOH Dirk rolling through the 2011 playoffs and upsetting a favored Heat team in the playoff's is huge. It shows that the capability is there, but if it never happens then you can only project what a player can do.

This is the argument against the "It depends on how he performs" statement. Just because a player performs well individually doesn't mean his team will play well. Individual performance should not be analyzed independent of the team performance, this is not golf/tennis where a player is solo. It's a team game and how a player blends his performance into the team is paramount.....