Stockton Vs Nash vs Kidd

[Baller2014]

Whether a player is good on D may have little bearing on their overall impact. I did explain this at some length. All that matters is overall impact, not "balance" or "skill". Plenty of guys who specialise in just one area can be more impactful than a guy who is an all-arounder. Similarly, a guy with poor D, especially at point guard, can still be way more valuable than a guy who is good at both O and D. Nash is such a player.

For instance, imagine a guy who can reliably hit 3's from anywhere on the court. He might be below average in every other facet of the game, but that one skill makes him the most valuable player in the NBA. These sorts of "but how did he play on D/O" arguments always seem to go hand in hand with arguments about "balance" and "skill", which are reluctant to address why a guys team underachieved with him. Bob Sura and Brent Barry were both way more "skilled" and "balanced" than Shaq, but that's meaningless... Shaq was the better basketball player. It's like Pokémon Generation 1. Gyarados, Flareon and Dragonite all look awesome with those huge base stats, but they're distributed badly. Meanwhile a pokemon with far lower base stats, Chansey, is about ten times more usable (and annoying to play against). It has pitiful defense and attack stats, but it's huge stats in more useful areas, and unique abilities, make it more playable. Nash is Chansey, astonishingly more useful than it looks on paper, to the point that you come to hate it's success with a burning passion. Stockton is Flareon. Good on paper, but in reality too limited and easily countered to be compared to the elite pokemon like Chansey.

[Texas Chuck]

You made a really good post (I even and 1 you). Then you went back and posted a whole bunch of extreme and absurd examples weakening your own point. Just leave it at the first paragraph.

[Baller2014]

I thought about stopping there, then I imagined the likely response along the lines of "but if you're good on D and O, you're obviously better than someone good on just O! D is 50% of the game!!", and I thought "you know, I should save time and just cut that off in advance". Some of those examples are indeed extreme and simplistic, but sometimes you need to go there to reach your audience.

[ElGee]

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.....

I don't think that's what is happening. I think the people who champion Nash don't write a lot of narratives. I think you are in a group more prone to a "narrative." As a result, you attribute your differences in the player evaluation to a narrative. When asking people to why they champion Nash, you hear stuff like "he ran the best offenses ever." When you also ask people to explain something away in your narrative -- how to explain the Suns not winning a title -- you hear "Nash played great, they didn't lose on his shoulders." You see this as being a narrative where "anything good that happened was due to Nash...any failures was someone else's fault."

I don't think I've seen anyone ever actually say that. But keep in mind -- and I can't speak for others -- I don't see basketball as being a "blame" or "credit" game. I see gravity-like evidence that the game is determined by the net score, and that players make a contribution to that score, and when we talk about good player's, it's never really negative. It's always a matter of the degree of positive contribution, and when we check the team scoreboard, the result is always a function of all of the other players in the game + the positive contribution of the star. Sometimes it's a win, sometimes it's a loss. Nothing needs to be "blamed" or "credited" to stars in that case. We just need to analyze how well they played.

Of course, it's a lil hyperbole to say every Nash supporter has the same argument but it definitely feels that way a lot of times. I agree with everything you said and want to focus on the highlighted part. It's become en vogue to say it's "about how well they played".

I think what people don't realize is just because Nash played well does not mean he played well enough. A lot of players play well, that's the fallacy of statistics. What is the standard for playing well? Is it a minimum amount of pts/asts/rebs/stls/blks/TS%/PER/WS/RAPM?

How do we blend an individual playing well vs their team winning? This is also the fallacy of just looking at the individual playing well....basketball is not an individual sport. And the PG position is the barometer for how well the team is playing. Every time a team's offense is not playing well, for example the Thunder this year, the PG is blamed. Russell Westbrook played tremendous basketball, but that doesn't mean it's a winning type of basketball. Then we get into, well it does not matter to a players evaluation if a team wins or not..............................whew, that's a concept hard for me to understand when the majority of player peaks on this board coincide with them doing their most winning or won awards.

You are describing where we diverge in player analysis. There's no need to rehash old conversations, but I'll point out our gaps here as you've spelled some stuff out nicely:

If you do not understand independence then you will certainly balk at separating an individual and the team. The reason a team outcome does not matter to a player's evaluation is because there are factors independent of an individual.

Think of it this way -- Sometimes I carry a wad of 10 bills in my pocket. Sometimes it's a bunch of 1's. Sometimes it's a bunch of 5's. Occasionally, I have a good week and there is a 20 in there! The total of the 10 bills is not determined by whether I have a 20 in my pocket. It's determined by...the total of all 10 bills. (Boring, I know.) So when I compare two wads:

A: 1, 1, 5, 5, 5, 10, 10, 10, 10, 5
B: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 5, 20, 5, 5

Wad A is worth more ($62 to $50). Independent of that fact, the most valuable bill is still the $20 bill.

So, if we try and determine which team is better in basketball -- who is better at accruing more points than their opponent? -- we look at the total of the value (Wad A). If we ask who the best player is, we no longer care about those totals, but simply who contributed most to those totals.** If for some reason you don't buy this or don't understand this then yes, you are certainly going to reject almost every conclusion that doesn't tether the team to the individual.

**

Spoiler:

The greater an individual can influence the bunch -- i.e. throw a $50 in there, or shrink the wad to five bills -- the stronger the correlation will be between the highest bill and the highest total. Which is why you see some of the GOAT peak correlated with team titles. But when you have independent factors, it does not matter to a player evaluation if a team wins or not. Thus:

I think what people don't realize is just because Nash played well does not mean he played well enough.

Playing well enough (to win) is arbitrary. Sometimes you can play really poorly and your team wins, sometimes you can play great and lose.

This is also the fallacy of just looking at the individual playing well....basketball is not an individual sport.

The more one ignores the independencies I just outlined, the more one reduces basketball to an individual sport.

[Texas Chuck]

ElGee,

im not sure your wallet analogy fits as perfectly as you make it out to.

Take Steve Nash in place of the $20 bill. Does he not make his teammates have more value based on his ability? Many of the arguments in favor of him talk about just that thing. So are you saying you don't believe that he makes players around him better?

Because your analogy strongly implies get 5 independently valuable players and you will have the highest chance of success, but real life doesnt bear that out. You need synergy. Its not always about who has the most money in their wallet.

Yes we have to look at individual beyond just team success. No one is seriously arguing otherwise, but we can't completely isolate any one individual.

[ronnymac2]

Whether a player is good on D may have little bearing on their overall impact. I did explain this at some length. All that matters is overall impact, not "balance" or "skill". Plenty of guys who specialise in just one area can be more impactful than a guy who is an all-arounder. Similarly, a guy with poor D, especially at point guard, can still be way more valuable than a guy who is good at both O and D. Nash is such a player.

For instance, imagine a guy who can reliably hit 3's from anywhere on the court. He might be below average in every other facet of the game, but that one skill makes him the most valuable player in the NBA. These sorts of "but how did he play on D/O" arguments always seem to go hand in hand with arguments about "balance" and "skill", which are reluctant to address why a guys team underachieved with him. Bob Sura and Brent Barry were both way more "skilled" and "balanced" than Shaq, but that's meaningless... Shaq was the better basketball player. It's like Pokémon Generation 1. Gyarados, Flareon and Dragonite all look awesome with those huge base stats, but they're distributed badly. Meanwhile a pokemon with far lower base stats, Chansey, is about ten times more usable (and annoying to play against). It has pitiful defense and attack stats, but it's huge stats in more useful areas, and unique abilities, make it more playable. Nash is Chansey, astonishingly more useful than it looks on paper, to the point that you come to hate it's success with a burning passion. Stockton is Flareon. Good on paper, but in reality too limited and easily countered to be compared to the elite pokemon like Chansey.

From what I remember, Chansey was a beast.

In all seriousness, that's a decent comparison. Matchups matter. When you play Nash, you're destined to give up something. You can't really control him. He's a constant. You just have to hope you have a constant, too. San Antonio had that in prime Tim Duncan, and the Spurs were able to control the paint and win those series.


I'd rank them like this:

Nash
Kidd
Stockton

I do think Jason Kidd is one of the most underrated players on this board though.

[Sasaki]

Whether a player is good on D may have little bearing on their overall impact. I did explain this at some length. All that matters is overall impact, not "balance" or "skill". Plenty of guys who specialise in just one area can be more impactful than a guy who is an all-arounder. Similarly, a guy with poor D, especially at point guard, can still be way more valuable than a guy who is good at both O and D. Nash is such a player.

For instance, imagine a guy who can reliably hit 3's from anywhere on the court. He might be below average in every other facet of the game, but that one skill makes him the most valuable player in the NBA. These sorts of "but how did he play on D/O" arguments always seem to go hand in hand with arguments about "balance" and "skill", which are reluctant to address why a guys team underachieved with him. Bob Sura and Brent Barry were both way more "skilled" and "balanced" than Shaq, but that's meaningless... Shaq was the better basketball player. It's like Pokémon Generation 1. Gyarados, Flareon and Dragonite all look awesome with those huge base stats, but they're distributed badly. Meanwhile a pokemon with far lower base stats, Chansey, is about ten times more usable (and annoying to play against). It has pitiful defense and attack stats, but it's huge stats in more useful areas, and unique abilities, make it more playable. Nash is Chansey, astonishingly more useful than it looks on paper, to the point that you come to hate it's success with a burning passion. Stockton is Flareon. Good on paper, but in reality too limited and easily countered to be compared to the elite pokemon like Chansey.

Eh, I've always preferred comparing Nash to Gengar. Horrible defenses, good but not great base stats...but is good enough in just the right places that aside from the obvious Mewtwo, it's the single most effective Pokemon out of the original 151 ( the only one to be a powerful competitive force in all six generations)

[ronnymac2]

Whether a player is good on D may have little bearing on their overall impact. I did explain this at some length. All that matters is overall impact, not "balance" or "skill". Plenty of guys who specialise in just one area can be more impactful than a guy who is an all-arounder. Similarly, a guy with poor D, especially at point guard, can still be way more valuable than a guy who is good at both O and D. Nash is such a player.

For instance, imagine a guy who can reliably hit 3's from anywhere on the court. He might be below average in every other facet of the game, but that one skill makes him the most valuable player in the NBA. These sorts of "but how did he play on D/O" arguments always seem to go hand in hand with arguments about "balance" and "skill", which are reluctant to address why a guys team underachieved with him. Bob Sura and Brent Barry were both way more "skilled" and "balanced" than Shaq, but that's meaningless... Shaq was the better basketball player. It's like Pokémon Generation 1. Gyarados, Flareon and Dragonite all look awesome with those huge base stats, but they're distributed badly. Meanwhile a pokemon with far lower base stats, Chansey, is about ten times more usable (and annoying to play against). It has pitiful defense and attack stats, but it's huge stats in more useful areas, and unique abilities, make it more playable. Nash is Chansey, astonishingly more useful than it looks on paper, to the point that you come to hate it's success with a burning passion. Stockton is Flareon. Good on paper, but in reality too limited and easily countered to be compared to the elite pokemon like Chansey.

Eh, I've always preferred comparing Nash to Gengar. Horrible defenses, good but not great base stats...but is good enough in just the right places that aside from the obvious Mewtwo, it's the single most effective Pokemon out of the original 151 ( the only one to be a powerful competitive force in all six generations)

What's the basketball equivalent of being immune to normal attacks? Is his jumper immune to closeouts? I could see that.

And SMH. Snorlax, Chansey, Mew, Slowbro, etc., would like a word with you sir.

#PalletTown #OneFittyOne4Life #1999 #SurprisedIRemember

[SDChargers#1]

"I'd rank them like this:

Nash
Kidd
Stockton"

I don't know how anyone could possibly justify this.

Stockton is quite clearly the best of the 3. It is backed up by pretty much every metric there is. Even old man Stockton was a RAPM monster. He literally doesn't have a weakness as a player (aside from maybe not being as assertive as he should be at times). He is good or great at every aspect of the game (Defense, shootings, passing (yes he is better than Nash at passing), etc).

Nash and Kidd both have GLARING holes in their games.

[Sasaki]

What's the basketball equivalent of being immune to normal attacks? Is his jumper immune to closeouts? I could see that.

And SMH. Snorlax, Chansey, Mew, Slowbro, etc., would like a word with you sir.

#PalletTown #OneFittyOne4Life #1999 #SurprisedIRemember

I know this is off-topic, but...

Snorlax - has gotten progressively worse since his peak in GSC, has been mediocre since Gen 4 and garbage since Gen 5. Defenses no longer good enough to handle the power creep over the generations, and obviously doesn't have speed to compensate. So basically Bill Russell, in that we don't know how good Russell would be if he played in the NBA.
Chansey - outclassed by Blissey generations 2-4.
Mew - has been terrible since Gen 5. Suffers from the problem that while Mew can be used for every role out there, there's a Pokemon who can do each one of those roles better. Also, Psychic has fallen from being stupid broken in Gen 1 to arguably the single worst type in the game now in Gen 6. Kobe, perhaps?
Slowbro - lacks speed and real attacking power. Not even the best Water/Psychic out of the original 150, as Starmie is pretty much third to Gengar, followed by Zapdos.

[ElGee]

ElGee,

im not sure your wallet analogy fits as perfectly as you make it out to.

Take Steve Nash in place of the $20 bill. Does he not make his teammates have more value based on his ability? Many of the arguments in favor of him talk about just that thing. So are you saying you don't believe that he makes players around him better?

I'm simplifying, yes, but no, I do not think players make other players better outside of literally teaching them/training them in practice. They just make them look better.

Yes we have to look at individual beyond just team success. No one is seriously arguing otherwise, but we can't completely isolate any one individual.

Correct -- we are trying to isolate the individual from the team.

[Texas Chuck]

[
I'm simplifying, yes, but no, I do not think players make other players better outside of literally teaching them/training them in practice. They just make them look better.

I kind of understand this. But for instance, while a post like Shaq having good shooters around him doesnt make him a better player, but they can make him more effective. Or to tie it back to this thread, the finishers/shooters Nash played with didnt make him a better player, but they were better equipped to take advantage of his skills then Dirk/Finley et all.

So on one hand, I completely agree. Nash didn't become a better basketball player in 2005 because of Amare,Marion, MDA, etc. I think he did improve as a player, but more as a result of some improvements he made in taking care of his body. But I don't think we can question that a part of why he was so effective in Phoenix was because of how symbiotic a relationship he had with the other players on his team and with his coach.

Its one of the reasons I look at 5 man unit stats more than just individual stats. I think players do impact the effectiveness of other players and while we can attempt to isolate and quantify their individual impact I don't think it's possible to do it definitively considering the game is always played 5 v 5. And why do we want to attempt to look exclusively at a player in a vacuum when the game is never played as such?

Some of this is my opinion and some of it is questions. I appreciate your insights as always even tho we don't look at things in exactly the same ways.

[Baller2014]

Eh, I've always preferred comparing Nash to Gengar. Horrible defenses, good but not great base stats...but is good enough in just the right places that aside from the obvious Mewtwo, it's the single most effective Pokemon out of the original 151 ( the only one to be a powerful competitive force in all six generations)

You make a lot of good comments later (Snorlax has indeed gotten worse), but come on, Gengar was only in the "useable, but not great" category back in gen 1. If you found him to be the most effective pokemon in gen 1 then the people you were playing against were terrible players. Nash is Chansey, the ultimate specialist from Gen 1. He doesn't need good D to be more impactful than those who do, just like most NBA point guards don't.

[ElGee]

[
I'm simplifying, yes, but no, I do not think players make other players better outside of literally teaching them/training them in practice. They just make them look better.

I kind of understand this. But for instance, while a post like Shaq having good shooters around him doesnt make him a better player, but they can make him more effective. Or to tie it back to this thread, the finishers/shooters Nash played with didnt make him a better player, but they were better equipped to take advantage of his skills then Dirk/Finley et all.

So on one hand, I completely agree. Nash didn't become a better basketball player in 2005 because of Amare,Marion, MDA, etc. I think he did improve as a player, but more as a result of some improvements he made in taking care of his body. But I don't think we can question that a part of why he was so effective in Phoenix was because of how symbiotic a relationship he had with the other players on his team and with his coach.

Its one of the reasons I look at 5 man unit stats more than just individual stats. I think players do impact the effectiveness of other players and while we can attempt to isolate and quantify their individual impact I don't think it's possible to do it definitively considering the game is always played 5 v 5. And why do we want to attempt to look exclusively at a player in a vacuum when the game is never played as such?

Some of this is my opinion and some of it is questions. I appreciate your insights as always even tho we don't look at things in exactly the same ways.

Agree completely. We aren't looking at something in a vacuum -- again, I was simplifying. When I give players a point-per game impact, it's an average of their impact across different settings. For the purpose of the wallet analogy, treating the average as a dollar denomination was sufficient and most practical. We absolutely want to look at how a guy looks next to spot-up shooters, post players, ball-dominant players, etc. (That's why portability matters.) It's why there is a fundamental difference between situational value and absolute goodness, and we should not become married to the former if we are actually trying to evaluate a player.

[G35]

[
I'm simplifying, yes, but no, I do not think players make other players better outside of literally teaching them/training them in practice. They just make them look better.

I kind of understand this. But for instance, while a post like Shaq having good shooters around him doesnt make him a better player, but they can make him more effective. Or to tie it back to this thread, the finishers/shooters Nash played with didnt make him a better player, but they were better equipped to take advantage of his skills then Dirk/Finley et all.

So on one hand, I completely agree. Nash didn't become a better basketball player in 2005 because of Amare,Marion, MDA, etc. I think he did improve as a player, but more as a result of some improvements he made in taking care of his body. But I don't think we can question that a part of why he was so effective in Phoenix was because of how symbiotic a relationship he had with the other players on his team and with his coach.

Its one of the reasons I look at 5 man unit stats more than just individual stats. I think players do impact the effectiveness of other players and while we can attempt to isolate and quantify their individual impact I don't think it's possible to do it definitively considering the game is always played 5 v 5. And why do we want to attempt to look exclusively at a player in a vacuum when the game is never played as such?

Some of this is my opinion and some of it is questions. I appreciate your insights as always even tho we don't look at things in exactly the same ways.

Agree completely. We aren't looking at something in a vacuum -- again, I was simplifying. When I give players a point-per game impact, it's an average of their impact across different settings. For the purpose of the wallet analogy, treating the average as a dollar denomination was sufficient and most practical. We absolutely want to look at how a guy looks next to spot-up shooters, post players, ball-dominant players, etc. (That's why portability matters.) It's why there is a fundamental difference between situational value and absolute goodness, and we should not become married to the former if we are actually trying to evaluate a player.

With your bills analogy were you implying that Nash was the $20 bill? Because if that's what you are implying then individually he would be the most valuable player on the court. Now that goes into interpretation and the regular season MVP award is the easy example to make. How do we determine the most valuable player:

Best player on the best team
Player with the best individual performance/statistics
Player whose team would falter the most without him
Player that plays the best with him

Now in your bill scenario the $20 bill was the biggest bill and therefore the most valuable. The $20 bill will buy more assets than any of the other bills in any scenario, in a vacuum or in any context.

I don't think you can apply that Nash is the $20 bill in a vacuum...he needs context and lots of support to be one of the more valuable bills. Nash could not be this:

$20, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1

He is more like this

$10, $10, $5, $5, $2, $2, $1, $1, $1, $1

In a vacuum and you look at Nash you have to take his defense into account also, because in a vacuum you are looking at the net result without any context. You aren't hiding Nash on defense, you can't say Nash is great in a team defense, etc, etc.....

[Baller2014]

"I'd rank them like this:

Nash
Kidd
Stockton"

I don't know how anyone could possibly justify this.

Stockton is quite clearly the best of the 3. It is backed up by pretty much every metric there is. Even old man Stockton was a RAPM monster. He literally doesn't have a weakness as a player (aside from maybe not being as assertive as he should be at times). He is good or great at every aspect of the game (Defense, shootings, passing (yes he is better than Nash at passing), etc).

Nash and Kidd both have GLARING holes in their games.

Go read the thread then. There's a tonne of well explained reasons given. Nash and Kidd were MVP type players in their primes, Stockton was never a serious candidate. He was an all-star, who is being compared to franchise players (particularly Nash).

[G35]

"I'd rank them like this:

Nash
Kidd
Stockton"

I don't know how anyone could possibly justify this.

Stockton is quite clearly the best of the 3. It is backed up by pretty much every metric there is. Even old man Stockton was a RAPM monster. He literally doesn't have a weakness as a player (aside from maybe not being as assertive as he should be at times). He is good or great at every aspect of the game (Defense, shootings, passing (yes he is better than Nash at passing), etc).

Nash and Kidd both have GLARING holes in their games.

Go read the thread then. There's a tonne of well explained reasons given. Nash and Kidd were MVP type players in their primes, Stockton was never a serious candidate. He was an all-star, who is being compared to franchise players (particularly Nash).

Go look on the internet. Steve Nash's MVP's are BOTH highly questioned. Nash got the MVP with some of the lowest production ever.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/5739 ... ime/page/7

Upon winning the 2005 NBA MVP, there were plenty of audible gasps from around the league. Certainly Steve Nash had a good year and led the Phoenix Suns to the best record in the league that year at 62-20.

But his numbers: 15.5 ppg and 11.5 apg seemed awfully meager for the league's most valuable player. Could it have been possible that Amare Stoudemire's stronger 26.9 ppg and 8.9 rpg could have played a larger part in the teams success?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/5739 ... ime/page/8

Steve Nash is the only repeat MVP winner that has never appeared in an NBA Finals game. Nash received credit for leading the Suns to a solid 54-28 record despite playing without his All-Star big Amare Stoudemire for most of the season. And his numbers were improved from the previous year: 18.8 ppg and 10.5 apg.

But when considering the select company of repeat MVP winners, Nash stood with LeBron James, Karl Malone, Tim Duncan, and the players that only won once in Shaq, David Robinson, and Hakeem Olajuwon, or never won in Isiah Thomas, Jerry West.

Did Nash really belong in that distinguished company?

http://www.rankopedia.com/Why-Did-We-Pi ... 25275/.htm

Nash is ranked 2nd all time for controversial MVP pick ever


It's not as if we do not realize how spectacular a virtuoso Nash is on offense. I was amazed by the Suns offense, but their continued failures in the playoff's tempered that enthusiasm. There are few great defensive teams in the league in any given year, it just so happens that the Suns would run into the Spurs and they would not be able to beat them. The common narrative is that the Spurs were just a better team. I challenge that the Pistons would have beaten the Suns also. The playoff's are not the regular season.

http://www.emptythebench.com/2008/02/25 ... overrated/

There’s the obvious caveat here: Steve Nash is a great player. He’s unquestionably the catalyst which has transformed Phoenix’s offense into the best and most exciting in the NBA over the last four seasons. In terms of smooth passing skills, court vision, ball-handling and pure shooting Nash is the best player in the league. I’m not taking any of that away from him. The fact remains, however: on the defensive end of the end of the floor Steve Nash is one of the worst liabilities in the league. Nash simply cannot contain penetration; he is routinely beat off the dribble and he struggles to get back on open shooters.

Sunday’s game was a prime example, with Chauncey Billups able to get anywhere on the floor he wanted to at any time. Mr. Big Shot put up a nice line of 14 points, 11 assists and only 2 TOs… in 20:19 minutes! And it’s not like Billups is one of the quicker points in the NBA, he’s a cagey vet with below-average speed and athleticism. The young guns in the West regularly make Nash look even worse. So why does nobody talk about it?

Here is some Nash vs other PG research that I would love for someone to do. I'm too lazy and incapable of doing it but I am sure it's out there.

In February alone Baron Davis has torn him up for 27 points and 13 assists on 12-of-23 shooting, and closed that game out by hitting three straight baskets. A couple nights before that Chris Paul went off for 42 points and 9 assists on 18-for-33 shooting. These are the types of point guards Phoenix will have to go through on their way to the NBA Finals. And those aren’t freak occurrences, opposing points routinely put up their best numbers against Nash and the Suns. According to 82games.com opponent’s point guards average an All Star line of 21 points and 7.4 assists on 49.8% FGs. That’s killing Phoenix night in, night out.

Now, we should also point out that statistics of all varieties are inflated in dealing with the Phoenix Suns. They are consistently among the league leaders in total possessions per game simply because they run so much. But that doesn’t let Nash off the hook for his complete inability to stop anybody, especially in late-game situations. He’s gotten so bad in the final minutes that it seems prudent to sub him out of the game on key defensive possessions. Does that sound like an MVP? Again, he’s a great player, but an MVP to me is a guy with a complete game who does it on both ends of the floor — not a guy who consistently hurts your chances of winning with his play on one end. A player like Chris Paul, LeBron James, Kevin Garnett or Kobe Bryant (who was better than Nash in each of his MVP seasons).

And this is the coop duh gracie

Addendum: Some people in the comments below have asked for stats which show a more direct correlation between Nash and defensive inefficiency, so here’s something else to consider: The season before the Nash came to Phoenix in 03-04 the Suns held opposing teams to 97.9 points per. They’ve given up over 102 points per in each season since.

Meanwhile, the Dallas Mavericks gave up 100.8 (second-most in the NBA) in 03-04, Nash’s last season. In the four seasons since his departure they’ve given up only 96.8 per, 93.1 per, 92.8 and 95.1 per while climbing into the NBA’s top ten in defensive efficiency. They also made it to the NBA Finals in 2006, something they never did before Nash left as a free agent. The Suns haven’t made it there with Nash either.

[Baller2014]

Nash's MVP's were not remotely controversial. There's always a few people who think it should have gone to someone else, but when looking at fallout from past MVPs, and ones that were subject to much criticism, Nash's don't rank at all. Moreover there's a tonne of data through this thread that totally validates his MVP impact.

[Sasaki]

Nash's MVP's were not remotely controversial. There's always a few people who think it should have gone to someone else, but when looking at fallout from past MVPs, and ones that were subject to much criticism, Nash's don't rank at all. Moreover there's a tonne of data through this thread that totally validates his MVP impact.

I don't think Nash should have gotten the 2005 MVP, but it was indeed very, very close between him and Shaq, which is more then can ever be said about Stockton.

[G35]

Nash's MVP's were not remotely controversial. There's always a few people who think it should have gone to someone else, but when looking at fallout from past MVPs, and ones that were subject to much criticism, Nash's don't rank at all. Moreover there's a tonne of data through this thread that totally validates his MVP impact.

No there isn't. I don't see any data that validates his selection as the clear MVP.

If it wasn't remotely controversial we wouldn't have threads about it

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1155041

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1067212

Nash's name keeps popping up.....