Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than CP3

Moderators: Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0, trex_8063, PaulieWal

Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 51,696
And1: 20,476
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#21 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:23 am

bigboi wrote:While I agree with the CP3 part. I don't agree with your assessment on Nash, Amare was fine without Nash until Melo came and injuries started to plague him. I think Nash was blessed with players, who were just beasts in general and he just helped the players with his control of pace. Overall I think PGs' offense is overrated


I shouldn't give the impression that Amare was nothing without Nash because he clearly wasn't, but Amare was clearly at his scariest when he was with Nash, which is what you'd expect for a hyper athletic big man. In that sense what happened with Nash & Amare isn't all that noteworthy, it's just one example to serve as contrast to Paul actually appearing to stymie the best offensive scoring option he ever played with.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
bigboi
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,432
And1: 1,324
Joined: Nov 05, 2010

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#22 » by bigboi » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:29 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
bigboi wrote:While I agree with the CP3 part. I don't agree with your assessment on Nash, Amare was fine without Nash until Melo came and injuries started to plague him. I think Nash was blessed with players, who were just beasts in general and he just helped the players with his control of pace. Overall I think PGs' offense is overrated


I shouldn't give the impression that Amare was nothing without Nash because he clearly wasn't, but Amare was clearly at his scariest when he was with Nash, which is what you'd expect for a hyper athletic big man. In that sense what happened with Nash & Amare isn't all that noteworthy, it's just one example to serve as contrast to Paul actually appearing to stymie the best offensive scoring option he ever played with.


In that case, I completely agree
tlee324 wrote:
Lebron made it to the finals with that cleveland team.

Bird would have won 4 rings with that team, in this weak ass era of basketball.
NinjaSheppard
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,775
And1: 1,404
Joined: May 18, 2012
 

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#23 » by NinjaSheppard » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:29 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
ElMaestro90 wrote:What is difference between Magic/Nash that propels them above CP3?



Additionally, there's the matter of how there tendencies affected other stars. When Nash came to Phoenix, he made Amare look like a god. When Paul came to LA, he made people wonder what was wrong with Griffin - and we now see with Doc Rivers' insistence that Paul speed up the game to take advantage of the young athletic team that Paul was actually part of the problem. He had to be coaxed by an authority figure to play in a manner conducive to Griffin's strengths and I think when in a comparison of all-timers, that's rather a big deal. You judge a floor general in large part of how much bang he gets for his buck of the guys around him, and if a guy isn't then that either means he doesn't have the very top awareness you'd hope for, or that his control issues prevent him from acting on his awareness. Either way it's an issue.


I have an issue with this statement. I don't think it is really fair to compare Stoudemire and Blake in that sense because Stoudemire got to play the 5 next to stretch 4s while Blake Griffin had to play the 4 next to a center that stretches the court as much as you do when you are watching the game. Blake's pick and roll opportunities went to DJ a lot of the time and the ones that did not were obviously not as open. Stoudemire had his own struggles when he was put in Porter's system next to Shaq which was a semi-similar situation to the point that people were wondering what was wrong with Amar'e.

Also an authority figure coaxing Paul into playing differently hasn't really resulted in better offensive results for the Clippers. They had the best offense in the league this year mostly because it was the first year they didn't fall apart without Chris Paul. Say what you will about Chris Paul but when he was on the court his first season with the Clippers they had an offensive rating of 114 with Foye/Butler/DJ as three of the four other starters and last year they had an offensive rating of 117 with Paul on the court and mediocre offensive starters outside of Griffin.

I do agree that overall Nash is the better offensive player because I think if you give both guys an ideal situation he will push it higher but Paul has his own advantages in that he can work awful situations better than Nash because of his ability to maximize the amount of shots his team will take.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 51,696
And1: 20,476
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#24 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:33 am

Woodsanity wrote:I haven't seen Nash have nearly as much success outside of Phoenix. I question his portability. I don't think he is a better offensive player than Cp3. They are pretty much on par with each other. To say that Nash made Amare is extremely disingenuous considering a washed up Amare played fairly well on the Knicks pre-Melo when the Knicks were surrounded by mediocre players. I don't remember the last time the Knicks had a good PG(not gonna include Lin here).

Magic on the other hand is clearly better due to his size advantage which gives him a lot more options as a scorer.


I haven't seen Magic have much success outside of Los Angeles either, yet, you and I have both managed to become very confident that location basically has nothing to do with his capabilities. :wink:

Seriously man, just because Nash didn't change cities doesn't mean he didn't have to adapt some. He just didn't have to adapt that much because Phoenix continued to let him dictate the offense...just like every team everywhere does when they now they have an outlier offensive talent in their midst.

What about in Dallas? The team thought Dirk was the better talent and made Nash defer. It still worked out fantastically so no one should see that as Nash not being successful, but it absolutely would have been better to do it differently.

What about in LA? An absolute trainwreck that doesn't tell you anything about any of the players' capabilities (though you can learn things about their personalities). Additionally though I'll say that I think it was a pretty naive move acquiring Nash in a setup where Kobe is King. The reality is that one guy is going to be the one in control, and that will cause problems. Kobe in control means Nash can't be Nash, and Nash in control means Kobe can't be Kobe. Only way you do that is if you have two guys who really, really know each other well, understand both their own limitations and the other guys' limitations, and are ready to be patient as they find a good fit together.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 51,696
And1: 20,476
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#25 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:48 am

NinjaSheppard wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
ElMaestro90 wrote:What is difference between Magic/Nash that propels them above CP3?



Additionally, there's the matter of how there tendencies affected other stars. When Nash came to Phoenix, he made Amare look like a god. When Paul came to LA, he made people wonder what was wrong with Griffin - and we now see with Doc Rivers' insistence that Paul speed up the game to take advantage of the young athletic team that Paul was actually part of the problem. He had to be coaxed by an authority figure to play in a manner conducive to Griffin's strengths and I think when in a comparison of all-timers, that's rather a big deal. You judge a floor general in large part of how much bang he gets for his buck of the guys around him, and if a guy isn't then that either means he doesn't have the very top awareness you'd hope for, or that his control issues prevent him from acting on his awareness. Either way it's an issue.


I have an issue with this statement. I don't think it is really fair to compare Stoudemire and Blake in that sense because Stoudemire got to play the 5 next to stretch 4s while Blake Griffin had to play the 4 next to a center that stretches the court as much as you do when you are watching the game. Blake's pick and roll opportunities went to DJ a lot of the time and the ones that did not were obviously not as open. Stoudemire had his own struggles when he was put in Porter's system next to Shaq which was a semi-similar situation to the point that people were wondering what was wrong with Amar'e.

Also an authority figure coaxing Paul into playing differently hasn't really resulted in better offensive results for the Clippers. They had the best offense in the league this year mostly because it was the first year they didn't fall apart without Chris Paul. Say what you will about Chris Paul but when he was on the court his first season with the Clippers they had an offensive rating of 114 with Foye/Butler/DJ as three of the four other starters and last year they had an offensive rating of 117 with Paul on the court and mediocre offensive starters outside of Griffin.

I do agree that overall Nash is the better offensive player because I think if you give both guys an ideal situation he will push it higher but Paul has his own advantages in that he can work awful situations better than Nash because of his ability to maximize the amount of shots his team will take.


Oh I just think you're too sympathetic here. Ask every person ever what they thought would happen when Paul came to Griffin's team, they all would expect Griffin's scoring to go up because of the upgrade at the facilitator position. It went down, and his transition opportunities were significant part of that. It's just not an optimal use of the guy.

I understand wanting to bring Shaq into this but remember that things were basically fine despite Shaq after they got rid of Porter. Oddly, you could kind of say that Porter tried to turn Nash into Paul. A mistake to be sure, but if we're honest the real issue here has much to do with choosing to make such heavy use of a past sell-by date Shaq.

Re: offense not really better. They have a better ORtg despite placing less emphasis on offensive rebounding, that's improvement.

Also do you realize that Blake Griffin led the entire league in raw +/- this year? He wasn't anywhere close last year.

But with all that said, we're just picking between great players here. Paul is easily the best point guard we've seen this generation other than Nash, and there's been no situation where he's been anything I'd consider unimpressive.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
NO-KG-AI
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 43,287
And1: 18,599
Joined: Jul 19, 2005
Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#26 » by NO-KG-AI » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:50 am

Magic is the biggest positional mismatch in basketball history. Besides the fact that he's as good a passer, or better, than either of these two, and can get an entire team going and in rhythm, he's a more potent scorer, and can impose his will physically and get his scoring game going better than the other two. His scoring and efficiency was pretty ridiculous, and that tends to get forgotten.

Anyone can tell you I love Chris Paul, but Magic is a truly special basketball talent and his size alone can screw with a team's game plan in ways that you can't get from these other two.
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 88,207
And1: 92,574
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#27 » by Texas Chuck » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:01 am

Doctor MJ wrote:What about in Dallas? The team thought Dirk was the better talent and made Nash defer. It still worked out fantastically so no one should see that as Nash not being successful, but it absolutely would have been better to do it differently.



Im struggling to understand your interpretation of all things Nash. You give him all this credit because things fell apart when he sat in Phoenix. Point out that playing with Dirk worked(well duh). But what you don't mention is what happened to the Mavericks offense when their PG went from top 2 all-time offensive PG to Jason Terry playing out of position and very young raw Devin Harris.

Nash's last year in Dallas: 105.2 ppg (1st) Off rtg 112.1 (1st) about what you'd expect if Nash is everything you say he is playing with Dirk(and other very talented offensive players)

Dallas first year no Nash: 102.5 (3rd) Off rtg 110.3 (4th) so a drop off. But considering they also replaced Jamison with terrible Stack, Finley regressed further, and Avery took over mid-stream hardly the collapse you should expect with this all-time great leaving.

Year 2 post-Nash ppg 99.1( 9th) down 6 points from Nash--of course we have to realize pace when from 2nd to 29th. otrg tho is 111.8 (1st) and oh yeah a trip to the finals.

Again I think Nash is an amazing player, and one of the best offensive pgs of all-time. He may well be as good as you are saying he is. But you can't use that argument as pro-Nash over Paul and ignore essentially no drop off in Dallas when he left.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
laaboy808
Banned User
Posts: 168
And1: 19
Joined: Mar 11, 2014

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#28 » by laaboy808 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:08 am

Magic is in a class by himself. He lead the Lakers to 5 championships.

CP3 and Nash are miles below of Magic. They don't possess the intangibles needed to lead a championship caliber roster.
Hook_Em
Rookie
Posts: 1,185
And1: 811
Joined: Feb 19, 2012

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#29 » by Hook_Em » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:21 am

laaboy808 wrote:Magic is in a class by himself. He lead the Lakers to 5 championships.

CP3 and Nash are miles below of Magic. They don't possess the intangibles needed to lead a championship caliber roster.


The GOAT center and Big Game James didn't hurt him either.
G35
RealGM
Posts: 22,349
And1: 7,904
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
     

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#30 » by G35 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:51 am

Texas Chuck wrote:
Again I think Nash is an amazing player, and one of the best offensive pgs of all-time. He may well be as good as you are saying he is. But you can't use that argument as pro-Nash over Paul and ignore essentially no drop off in Dallas when he left.


Thank you for responding to the point about Nash's impact being irreplaceable. Barbosa has never in any sense ever been anything other than an undersized, streaky SG. He has a career APG of 2.3, the guy cannot run an offense.

And yes the Maverick offense did not drop off a cliff and their defense got better almost exponentially.

Doctor MJ wrote:
I haven't seen Magic have much success outside of Los Angeles either, yet, you and I have both managed to become very confident that location basically has nothing to do with his capabilities. :wink:

Seriously man, just because Nash didn't change cities doesn't mean he didn't have to adapt some. He just didn't have to adapt that much because Phoenix continued to let him dictate the offense...just like every team everywhere does when they now they have an outlier offensive talent in their midst.

What about in Dallas? The team thought Dirk was the better talent and made Nash defer. It still worked out fantastically so no one should see that as Nash not being successful, but it absolutely would have been better to do it differently.

What about in LA? An absolute trainwreck that doesn't tell you anything about any of the players' capabilities (though you can learn things about their personalities). Additionally though I'll say that I think it was a pretty naive move acquiring Nash in a setup where Kobe is King. The reality is that one guy is going to be the one in control, and that will cause problems. Kobe in control means Nash can't be Nash, and Nash in control means Kobe can't be Kobe. Only way you do that is if you have two guys who really, really know each other well, understand both their own limitations and the other guys' limitations, and are ready to be patient as they find a good fit together.


We can extrapolate what Magic could do because he is a physical mismatch at his position never seen before. It would translate in any situation. Even train wrecks. Nash did not always shine in Dallas, nor did he always shine in PHX, under different coaching/vision. That's the crutches other players have had to go through, as has been said many times Nash got the benefit of a coach who let him do whatever he wanted. That was focus all on offense; it was the adage of the best defense is a good offense, unfortunately that doesn't work in basketball. Suns/Nash fans complain that the Suns never had that defensive presence like a Tyson Chandler but they would not be the dominant offense moving Amare/Marion to their natural positions. I don't see how it can be argued that Nash didn't get a huge advantage having players at every position that were great offensive players. Put Roy Hibbert in the middle and the Suns offense is not nearly as good but their defense improves immeasurably...but when you have a team that doesn't care about defense and it wasn't just D'Antoni that didn't care. Their best player didn't care about defense either...it wasn't his job, his job it just go, go, go, offense, offense, offense. That makes Nash look great in PG offensive comparison's but overall not so much. It's like comparing James Harden to Michael Jordan, Harden might be semi-comparable offensively but that's only because he doesn't care about defense.

Magic looked dominant but didn't always dominate the ball. Many times he gave the ball to his playmakers and let them create e.g. Kareem, Worthy. Nash always has to dominate the ball and that is a weakness of those PHX offenses. It didn't allow other players to contribute beyond catching and shoot/spotting up.

I don't understand your critique of Paul not increasing Blake's scoring. The Clippers are trying to win a title...not making Blake a scoring champ. I mean his scoring is up, PER is at it's highest, TS% is at it's highest...Blake Griffin is not being underused. The Clippers SRS this year equals anything those Suns ever did.

Could Nash get Deandre Jordan to have the 5th best Offensive Rating? I honestly doubt it, Deandre is not the type of center Nash likes to play with. 3 Clippers are in the top 10 in win shares.

The way I see it, CP3 has the Clippers #1 in offense this year and a top 10 defense....something Nash and the Suns were never ever able to do. A lot of teams can do one or the other but to combine the two takes a savant......
I'm so tired of the typical......
Regulio
Senior
Posts: 690
And1: 156
Joined: Aug 19, 2011

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#31 » by Regulio » Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:04 am

Magic is in class of his own, he is clearly better than both Nash and CP3. Better at everything, except shooting, which didn't stop him being the better scorer though.

That leaves CP3 vs Nash.
If I was to draft one of them I'd go with CP3, he is more versatile, than Nash. Nash had the perfect environment to maximize his impact in PHO, but he is not as portable as CP3.
If the question is - is Nash better than CP3 on offense with perfect circumstances ? I'd say yes. But under normal circumstances, I'd choose Paul.
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,013
And1: 15,545
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#32 » by therealbig3 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:18 am

Wasn't Nash's backup in Phoenix some guy named Goran Dragic at one point, a guy who clearly had a ton of talent, was just robbed of an All-Star season, and actually had a very good year backing up Nash (2010)? And yet, the offense still fell apart with Nash on the bench.

As for the offensive talent that Nash played with...what about in 06, when they played without Amare? They had a very conventional, non-small ball starting lineup of Nash-Bell-Marion-Diaw-Thomas...and there were only 2 great shooters in that lineup: Nash and Bell. Marion was nothing to write home about from 3pt range (33%), Diaw barely took 3s and only hit 27% of them anyway, and Thomas wasn't a 3pt shooter. So a lineup that didn't have any better floor spacing than any other team in the NBA, WITHOUT Amare, still finished 2nd in the league in ORating and was a +5.3 offense. That's basically identical to the offense that Chris Paul led this past season (+5.4)...and it's even debatable if Paul led that offense or not, since he missed a lot of games and Griffin stepped up big time and led them to a lot of wins in his absence. I don't know exactly what happened to the offense statistically without Paul this year, but I'm willing to bet that there wasn't much of a dropoff, because of Griffin's presence.

So it looks like when Paul had the superior supporting cast, he could still only lead an offense just as good as Nash did, and it didn't seem as dependent on Paul as the Suns offense was on Nash. Even in 2009, with a coach that imo, really misused his personnel, and used Nash and Amare improperly in order to satisfy a washed up Shaq, the Suns offense was still +5.3, and that's only because the system shifted back to a Nash-centric offense towards the end of the year.

Nash proved in 2 separate years that in less than ideal circumstances, or in circumstances where the lineups aren't super skewed towards offense and are actually very conventional, that he could still lead a +5 offense, which is still super-elite, and is usually a "best in the league" caliber offense.

Basically, as far as offense is concerned, CP3 in ideal circumstances is a guy that can lead a +6-7 offense. Nash in ideal circumstances is a guy that can lead a +8-9 offense.

As far as what it is about Nash that makes me choose him offensively, it's his shooting ability, it's the enormous amount of pressure he puts on a defense in terms of constantly playing uptempo and constantly probing and dribbling in circles and trying to find weak spots. I don't think Paul does that nearly as well, but I do think his ability to secure the ball and not give up any possessions is a tremendous asset. Paul kills the defense in terms of his ability in the PnR and reading the defense and directing players where to go...but Nash does all of that a little bit better. His superior outside shooting kind of adds to these advantages too.

Outside of protecting the basketball, I don't really see what Paul does better than Nash offensively. I do see a few things that Nash does better than Paul though.

Of course, overall, this is still a legit debate, because of Paul's superior defense.
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,013
And1: 15,545
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#33 » by therealbig3 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:22 am

Under normal circumstances, Nash was leading the same caliber offense that CP3 led this year, which I wouldn't say was normal for CP3...that's a much better supporting cast than the vast majority of the NBA played with.
User avatar
GSP
RealGM
Posts: 19,207
And1: 15,721
Joined: Dec 12, 2011
     

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#34 » by GSP » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:36 am

Cp3 just doesnt get the best out of his teammates like Magic and Nash. The boxscore more or less covers the bult of Cp3s impact, steals, assist/turnover ratio etc. W/ Nash and Magic they raise their teammates performance to a higher level and make life easier for them in ways i dont see Cp3 doing
G35
RealGM
Posts: 22,349
And1: 7,904
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
     

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#35 » by G35 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:59 pm

therealbig3 wrote:Wasn't Nash's backup in Phoenix some guy named Goran Dragic at one point, a guy who clearly had a ton of talent, was just robbed of an All-Star season, and actually had a very good year backing up Nash (2010)? And yet, the offense still fell apart with Nash on the bench.

As for the offensive talent that Nash played with...what about in 06, when they played without Amare? They had a very conventional, non-small ball starting lineup of Nash-Bell-Marion-Diaw-Thomas...and there were only 2 great shooters in that lineup: Nash and Bell. Marion was nothing to write home about from 3pt range (33%), Diaw barely took 3s and only hit 27% of them anyway, and Thomas wasn't a 3pt shooter. So a lineup that didn't have any better floor spacing than any other team in the NBA, WITHOUT Amare, still finished 2nd in the league in ORating and was a +5.3 offense. That's basically identical to the offense that Chris Paul led this past season (+5.4)...and it's even debatable if Paul led that offense or not, since he missed a lot of games and Griffin stepped up big time and led them to a lot of wins in his absence. I don't know exactly what happened to the offense statistically without Paul this year, but I'm willing to bet that there wasn't much of a dropoff, because of Griffin's presence.

So it looks like when Paul had the superior supporting cast, he could still only lead an offense just as good as Nash did, and it didn't seem as dependent on Paul as the Suns offense was on Nash. Even in 2009, with a coach that imo, really misused his personnel, and used Nash and Amare improperly in order to satisfy a washed up Shaq, the Suns offense was still +5.3, and that's only because the system shifted back to a Nash-centric offense towards the end of the year.

Nash proved in 2 separate years that in less than ideal circumstances, or in circumstances where the lineups aren't super skewed towards offense and are actually very conventional, that he could still lead a +5 offense, which is still super-elite, and is usually a "best in the league" caliber offense.

Basically, as far as offense is concerned, CP3 in ideal circumstances is a guy that can lead a +6-7 offense. Nash in ideal circumstances is a guy that can lead a +8-9 offense.

As far as what it is about Nash that makes me choose him offensively, it's his shooting ability, it's the enormous amount of pressure he puts on a defense in terms of constantly playing uptempo and constantly probing and dribbling in circles and trying to find weak spots. I don't think Paul does that nearly as well, but I do think his ability to secure the ball and not give up any possessions is a tremendous asset. Paul kills the defense in terms of his ability in the PnR and reading the defense and directing players where to go...but Nash does all of that a little bit better. His superior outside shooting kind of adds to these advantages too.

Outside of protecting the basketball, I don't really see what Paul does better than Nash offensively. I do see a few things that Nash does better than Paul though.

Of course, overall, this is still a legit debate, because of Paul's superior defense.



2005/2006 Suns starting lineup/games

Nash 79
Bell 79
Marion 81
Diaw 70
Thomas 50

So Thomas did start a lot but he missed 32 games of the season. Let's look at the actual minutes played because we like to go in depth here on the PC board:

Suns top 8 players minutes played

Marion 3263
Bell 2959
Diaw 2874
Nash 2796
James Jones 1772
Barbosa 1592
House 1421
Thomas 1411

A few things I notice is that Nash played the 4th most minutes and it's not even close, Marion is playing 5 more mpg than Nash. That is another reason why I think Marion's impact is underrated.

Shooters from 3pt range

Barbosa .444
Bell .442
Tim Thomas .429
House .389
James Jones .386

Compare this to the Clippers this year and Paul is only .8 minutes behind Griffin where they are all playing around 35 mpg. Granted CP3 is injury prone and his overall minutes are low.

Bottom line is Kurt Thomas barely played half the game, so the Suns were playing Diaw or Marion at C depending on matchups. Look at the Suns rankings and they were the #1 shooting 3pt team in the league, with the 2nd place Grizzlies over 260 3PA's behind. They had a sizable lead in pace, whereas the Clippers are 7th in pace.....
I'm so tired of the typical......
MO12msu
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,410
And1: 655
Joined: Jun 25, 2013
     

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#36 » by MO12msu » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:59 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
ElMaestro90 wrote:What is difference between Magic/Nash that propels them above CP3?


Additionally, there's the matter of how there tendencies affected other stars. When Nash came to Phoenix, he made Amare look like a god. When Paul came to LA, he made people wonder what was wrong with Griffin - and we now see with Doc Rivers' insistence that Paul speed up the game to take advantage of the young athletic team that Paul was actually part of the problem. He had to be coaxed by an authority figure to play in a manner conducive to Griffin's strengths and I think when in a comparison of all-timers, that's rather a big deal. You judge a floor general in large part of how much bang he gets for his buck of the guys around him, and if a guy isn't then that either means he doesn't have the very top awareness you'd hope for, or that his control issues prevent him from acting on his awareness. Either way it's an issue.

Eh, or you could just say that Del Negro was a terrible coach who almost literally just told Paul to go out there and make something happen because they had no real offensive system. Doc comes in and brings in Alvin Gentry to run an actual system and boom, CP3 has no problem relieving some of the ball handling duties. Judging by the fact that Deandre Jordan's game has also elevated under Doc, should CP3 take the bulk of the blame for doing what he was told? Or should we blame Del Negro for being an incompetent coach, who didn't realize how to play to the strengths of his players? I lean more toward the coach and system in this case than a point guard who has always had positive impacts on his team being the one holding other superstar players back. Not to mention this point guard has a history of passiveness so I highly doubt he was the one telling Griffin not to do his thing.

Btw, Griffin's efficiency went up Paul's first year in LA. His raw numbers only went down due to pace and the fact that Del Negro loved to play his bench.

Also some of Griffin's improvement is just him becoming more aggressive(taking the ball up and not hesitating to shoot open jumperss), which you could say he realized he had to do during Paul's absence, but I wouldn't say that's Paul's fault. And also Griffin's improvement is due to an improved free throw and jumper but I don't see how you could view that as having to do with Paul.

I will say that I agree that Paul's tendency to slow down the tempo may have had a small(though I think ultimately insignificant) on Blake's game at first.
Brenice
Banned User
Posts: 4,071
And1: 464
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
Location: DC

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#37 » by Brenice » Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:15 pm

I've seen Realgm discredit Don Nelson in Dallas for not utilizing Nash like D'Antoni, but Nash still gets all credit for everything Phoenix. But now I see Rivers getting credit for convincing CP3 to play differently. I wonder what CP3 would have done with Amare in place of Nash? What gives? I wonder would this have been a discussion if Nash had never went back to Phoenix or D'Antoni was never his coach.

I think Nash runs D'Antoni's system better than anyone. I think both Magic and CP3 run conventional offenses better than Nash.
Lost92Bricks
Veteran
Posts: 2,516
And1: 2,448
Joined: Jul 16, 2013

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#38 » by Lost92Bricks » Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:38 pm

therealbig3 wrote:As for the offensive talent that Nash played with...what about in 06, when they played without Amare?

That team had the exact same ORTG as the '08 Hornets with more offensive talent.

'06 Suns with Nash on the court: 114.8 ORTG
'08 Hornets with CP on the court: 116 ORTG

Also, how did Paul hold Griffin back when Griffin was averaging 27 pts on 60 TS% in the 10 games before Paul got injured? Anyone who's been watching the Clippers knows Blake raised his game mid December after they beat the Spurs.
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,013
And1: 15,545
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#39 » by therealbig3 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:58 pm

Lost92Bricks wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:As for the offensive talent that Nash played with...what about in 06, when they played without Amare?

That team had the exact same ORTG as the '08 Hornets with more offensive talent.

'06 Suns with Nash on the court: 114.8 ORTG
'08 Hornets with CP on the court: 116 ORTG

Also, how did Paul hold Griffin back when Griffin was averaging 27 pts on 60 TS% in the 10 games before Paul got injured? Anyone who's been watching the Clippers knows Blake raised his game mid December after they beat the Spurs.


The 08 Hornets had less offensive talent than the 06 Suns? Huh? Both of them had one All-Star on their team (Marion and West), but CP3 also had Tyson Chandler, who is an immensely valuable offensive big man, and is a perfect fit next to a great PG. And CP3 had his shooters too, like Peja and Mo-Pete. I think CP3 had better talent imo, Nash was mainly just playing with 3pt shooters, and he was kind of the main reason they were lighting it up from 3 that year anyway. He also MADE Marion look like an efficient offensive player. Marion as a SF is super limited offensively, and wasn't even a great shooter that year.

And according to BBR, the 06 Suns with Nash on the court were a 114.2 offense, while the 08 Hornets with Paul on the court were a 115.2 offense. But taking league average into account, the 06 Suns were +8.0 with Nash on the court, while the 08 Hornets were +7.7. So pretty much even, but like I said, I think the 08 Hornets had comparable or better offensive talent as the 06 Suns, since they didn't have Amare. David West is a super underrated player.
G35
RealGM
Posts: 22,349
And1: 7,904
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
     

Re: Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than 

Post#40 » by G35 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:37 pm

therealbig3 wrote:
Lost92Bricks wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:As for the offensive talent that Nash played with...what about in 06, when they played without Amare?

That team had the exact same ORTG as the '08 Hornets with more offensive talent.

'06 Suns with Nash on the court: 114.8 ORTG
'08 Hornets with CP on the court: 116 ORTG

Also, how did Paul hold Griffin back when Griffin was averaging 27 pts on 60 TS% in the 10 games before Paul got injured? Anyone who's been watching the Clippers knows Blake raised his game mid December after they beat the Spurs.


The 08 Hornets had less offensive talent than the 06 Suns? Huh? Both of them had one All-Star on their team (Marion and West), but CP3 also had Tyson Chandler, who is an immensely valuable offensive big man, and is a perfect fit next to a great PG. And CP3 had his shooters too, like Peja and Mo-Pete. I think CP3 had better talent imo, Nash was mainly just playing with 3pt shooters, and he was kind of the main reason they were lighting it up from 3 that year anyway. He also MADE Marion look like an efficient offensive player. Marion as a SF is super limited offensively, and wasn't even a great shooter that year.

And according to BBR, the 06 Suns with Nash on the court were a 114.2 offense, while the 08 Hornets with Paul on the court were a 115.2 offense. But taking league average into account, the 06 Suns were +8.0 with Nash on the court, while the 08 Hornets were +7.7. So pretty much even, but like I said, I think the 08 Hornets had comparable or better offensive talent as the 06 Suns, since they didn't have Amare. David West is a super underrated player.



These are the types of posts that just do everything they can to make Nash look like baby Jesus......
I'm so tired of the typical......

Return to Player Comparisons